https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776675 The CESTAT held that Cenvat credit must be availed within one year from the invoice date under the fifth proviso to Rule 4(7) of CCR. However, the appellant's credit availed on 01.10.2016 related to invoices dated 01.10.2015, and the one-year period was correctly computed. The Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the SCN by disputing the exact date of credit availment rather than the limitation period computation. The tribunal found no malafide intention by the appellant and clarified that credit availed anytime within a month is considered as availed on the first day of the next month for utilization purposes. The time limit does not apply to re-availment of credit. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:11:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776675 The CESTAT held that Cenvat credit must be availed within one year from the invoice date under the fifth proviso to Rule 4(7) of CCR. However, the appellant's credit availed on 01.10.2016 related to invoices dated 01.10.2015, and the one-year period was correctly computed. The Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the SCN by disputing the exact date of credit availment rather than the limitation period computation. The tribunal found no malafide intention by the appellant and clarified that credit availed anytime within a month is considered as availed on the first day of the next month for utilization purposes. The time limit does not apply to re-availment of credit. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776675