<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1326 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788571</link>
    <description>Misdeclared SEIS duty credit scrips obtained by suppressing the true nature of services could be treated as wrongly procured and, once cancelled void ab initio by the competent FTDR authority, customs recovery of duty on their utilisation remained sustainable, along with confiscation and company penalties for deliberate misdeclaration. The customs framework under Section 28AAA was applied where the instrument had been obtained by misstatement and used despite ineligibility. However, separate personal penalty on the Chief Financial Officer was not sustained because his role was that of an employee acting under company directions, his statement acknowledged ineligibility, and no independent basis for personal culpability was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1326 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788571</link>
      <description>Misdeclared SEIS duty credit scrips obtained by suppressing the true nature of services could be treated as wrongly procured and, once cancelled void ab initio by the competent FTDR authority, customs recovery of duty on their utilisation remained sustainable, along with confiscation and company penalties for deliberate misdeclaration. The customs framework under Section 28AAA was applied where the instrument had been obtained by misstatement and used despite ineligibility. However, separate personal penalty on the Chief Financial Officer was not sustained because his role was that of an employee acting under company directions, his statement acknowledged ineligibility, and no independent basis for personal culpability was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>