https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795651 Revenue neutrality in an excise dispute requires the assessee to prove admissible CENVAT credit sufficient to offset the duty liability; an unsupported assertion that available credit exceeds duty cannot sustain the plea. Additional customs duty discharged through DEPB scrip debits did not qualify for credit for the earlier period, while later-period eligibility required factual proof of the credit quantum. The High Court held that its jurisdiction was not excluded because the surviving dispute concerned revenue neutrality, not the rate of duty. It also upheld the extended limitation period, penalty and interest because findings of deliberate suppression and intent to evade duty remained undisplaced. The original duty consequences were restored. en-us Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:54:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795651 Revenue neutrality in an excise dispute requires the assessee to prove admissible CENVAT credit sufficient to offset the duty liability; an unsupported assertion that available credit exceeds duty cannot sustain the plea. Additional customs duty discharged through DEPB scrip debits did not qualify for credit for the earlier period, while later-period eligibility required factual proof of the credit quantum. The High Court held that its jurisdiction was not excluded because the surviving dispute concerned revenue neutrality, not the rate of duty. It also upheld the extended limitation period, penalty and interest because findings of deliberate suppression and intent to evade duty remained undisplaced. The original duty consequences were restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795651