<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell away.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98047</link>
    <description>Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips were treated as void ab initio, so the customs exemption based on them was never available. The tribunal found that the exporter had misdeclared IT and IT-enabled services as management consulting services to obtain the scrips, and that their later utilisation for duty payment satisfied Section 28AAA, justifying recovery of duty with interest. It also rejected the challenge to use of the Section 108 statement, finding no prejudice from the absence of further examination and no retraction of the statement. On the same facts, confiscation and penalties for fraudulent exemption claims were sustained, but the personal penalty on the employee-CFO was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell away.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98047</link>
      <description>Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips were treated as void ab initio, so the customs exemption based on them was never available. The tribunal found that the exporter had misdeclared IT and IT-enabled services as management consulting services to obtain the scrips, and that their later utilisation for duty payment satisfied Section 28AAA, justifying recovery of duty with interest. It also rejected the challenge to use of the Section 108 statement, finding no prejudice from the absence of further examination and no retraction of the statement. On the same facts, confiscation and penalties for fraudulent exemption claims were sustained, but the personal penalty on the employee-CFO was set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>