LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 27 July 2026

Whether the question of Cenvat credit or revenue neutrality would apply when CVD is paid only by debit DEPB scrips?

The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s.Computer Graphics Limited
CMA No. 507 of 2009 · CMA No. 507 of 2009
Coram: Justice N.Mala · Justice G. Jayachandran
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.11A Central Excise Act, 1944📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Unless the duty was paid in cash, CENVAT credit was not available, mere payment by debit in the DEPB scrips being of no avail, and the value of a DEPB scrip once used gets extinguished so that there is no question of seeking CENVAT credit thereafter. The plea of revenue neutrality therefore could not be sustained on that footing.

Headnote

Central Excise Act, 1944 — s.35G(1) — s.11A — s.11AC — Revenue neutrality — CENVAT credit on CVD debited in DEPB scrips — Extended period of limitation — Penalty and interest — Central Excise Act, 1944 — s.35G(1) — Maintainability — Excisability not in issue where finding unchallenged — Held: Where an assessee confines its challenge before the Tribunal to revenue neutrality and does not assail the findings on manufacture and excisability, those findings attain finality and the statutory bar on appeal is not attracted. (¶10) Central Excise Act, 1944 — Revenue neutrality — CENVAT credit on CVD debited in DEPB scrips — Held further: CENVAT credit is not available where the additional duty was paid merely by debit in the DEPB scrips and not in cash. A finding of revenue neutrality resting on no independent finding of the Tribunal is palpably perverse. (¶16, 17) Central Excise Act, 1944 — s.11A — Extended period of limitation — Suppression of facts — Held further: Where the Original Authority records deliberate suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty and rejects the plea of bona fide belief, the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. (¶23, 24) Central Excise Act, 1944 — s.11AC — Penalty and interest — Findings of fact not interfered with — Held further: Findings of fact recording contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and liability to deterrent penalty and interest call for no interference in the absence of perversity. Appeal allowed. (¶25, 27)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 16We find that the impugned order in so far as it relates to the revenue neutrality is palpably perverse. The Tribunal has not given any independent finding, on revenue neutrality for the period upto 31.08.2004, for which period the 1st respondent was admittedly not entitled to CVD paid on imported goods debited through DEPB scrips except for stating that it was time barred. The finding of the Tribunal on revenue neutrality is as follows:
Paragraph 17The issue before the Division Bench of this Court in the Mohan Breweries’ case was whether CENVAT credit could be availed, if the same was paid upon debit entry in passbook entry in DEPB scheme and without paying it in cash.
Acts & Sections
s.11A Central Excise Act, 1944s.11AC Central Excise Act, 1944s.11AB Central Excise Act, 1944s.2(f)(iii) Central Excise Act, 1944s.35G(1) Central Excise Act, 1944s.35L Central Excise Act, 1944Rule 25 Central Excise Rules, 2002

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s.Computer Graphics Limited — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act, 1944 be denied where suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty is found?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections