https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385933 Cenvat credit taken after the six-month period then prescribed under Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was held inadmissible because the later amendment extending the time limit to one year was prospective only. Credit availed on 28.02.2015, after expiry of the original six-month limit and before the amendment took effect, could not be regularised. The document also notes that because the restriction was clear and unambiguous, taking credit beyond that period constituted misdeclaration, suppression and fraud, so the extended period of limitation was available. The demand for inadmissible Cenvat credit was therefore sustained. en-us Thu, 18 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385933 Cenvat credit taken after the six-month period then prescribed under Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was held inadmissible because the later amendment extending the time limit to one year was prospective only. Credit availed on 28.02.2015, after expiry of the original six-month limit and before the amendment took effect, could not be regularised. The document also notes that because the restriction was clear and unambiguous, taking credit beyond that period constituted misdeclaration, suppression and fraud, so the extended period of limitation was available. The demand for inadmissible Cenvat credit was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385933