https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333359 Under the DFIA scheme, a merchant exporter could not be denied endorsement of transferability and exemption from additional customs duty merely because the supporting manufacturer had availed Cenvat credit, where the exporter itself had not. The Court applied the principle that in taxing provisions, a reasonable interpretation favouring the assessee must prevail, and rejected the double-benefit objection because the same entity had not taken the benefit twice. It further held that withdrawal of the endorsed benefit required notice and hearing, and an order passed in breach of a subsisting status quo direction could not stand. The impugned directions were quashed and the licence validity was directed to be extended. en-us Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 13:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333359 Under the DFIA scheme, a merchant exporter could not be denied endorsement of transferability and exemption from additional customs duty merely because the supporting manufacturer had availed Cenvat credit, where the exporter itself had not. The Court applied the principle that in taxing provisions, a reasonable interpretation favouring the assessee must prevail, and rejected the double-benefit objection because the same entity had not taken the benefit twice. It further held that withdrawal of the endorsed benefit required notice and hearing, and an order passed in breach of a subsisting status quo direction could not stand. The impugned directions were quashed and the licence validity was directed to be extended. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333359