Issues: (i) Whether the dissolution clause transferred ownership of the intangible assets or merely assigned their user rights; (ii) Whether the receipt from disposal of the intangible assets was annuity, royalty, or income from other sources, or instead sale consideration taxable only as long-term capital gains; (iii) Whether long-term capital gains could be charged where the cost of acquisition of the self-generated intangible assets was unascertainable; (iv) Whether the arbitral award was binding on its parties and could be disregarded by the Revenue; (v) Whether penalty for concealment survived after deletion of the quantum addition.

Issue (i): Whether the dissolution clause transferred ownership of the intangible assets or merely assigned their user rights.

Analysis: The clause did not stipulate a lump-sum purchase price, a definite period of use, or fixed instalments towards a specified sale price. The payment was indefinite, linked to the net profits of the business, and continued beyond the assessee's lifetime. These features established an assignment of user rights in the tenancy rights, goodwill, trade marks and trade names, rather than a sale of their ownership.

Conclusion: The dissolution clause assigned only user rights and did not transfer ownership of the intangible assets; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the receipt from disposal of the intangible assets was annuity, royalty, or income from other sources, or instead sale consideration taxable only as long-term capital gains.

Analysis: An annuity requires a fixed or predetermined payment and does not encompass a variable share linked to business profits. The annual profit-linked payment was licence fee for use of the assets, not annuity or royalty. The disputed receipt represented consideration for sale of the assessee's ownership rights in the trade marks and trade names and was not commutation of a perpetual payment.

Conclusion: The receipt was not taxable as income from other sources and could, in principle, fall only under long-term capital gains; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether long-term capital gains could be charged where the cost of acquisition of the self-generated intangible assets was unascertainable.

Analysis: The intangible assets were self-generated, and neither their cost of acquisition nor their cost of improvement was ascertainable in the hands of the assessee or the previous owner. The subsequent deemed-cost amendments did not operate retrospectively for the relevant assessment year, and the assets sold did not include goodwill so as to attract the applicable deemed-cost rule. The capital-gains computation machinery therefore failed.

Conclusion: No long-term capital gains were chargeable on the receipt because the cost of acquisition was unascertainable; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the arbitral award was binding on its parties and could be disregarded by the Revenue.

Analysis: The arbitral award was binding upon the parties to the arbitration. Mere allegations concerning its genuineness or motive, without investigation or supporting evidence, did not justify disregarding the award or the ownership and allocation determined under it.

Conclusion: The arbitral award was valid and binding between its parties and could not be displaced by unsupported objections of the Revenue; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalty for concealment survived after deletion of the quantum addition.

Analysis: The penalty rested entirely on the addition made in respect of the disputed receipt. Once that addition was deleted, the foundation for penalty ceased to exist.

Conclusion: Penalty was not leviable after deletion of the quantum addition; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The sale consideration for the intangible assets remained outside tax under both income from other sources and long-term capital gains for the relevant assessment year, and the corresponding penalty had no surviving basis.

Ratio Decidendi: An arrangement for indefinite, profit-linked payments that is not tied to a fixed purchase price constitutes an assignment of user rights rather than a sale; where self-generated intangible assets are subsequently sold with an unascertainable cost of acquisition and no applicable retrospective deemed-cost provision, the capital-gains computation mechanism does not apply.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the 694-day delay in filing the customs appeal.

Analysis: The law of limitation requires sufficient cause for condonation of delay. A stricter approach applies to an inordinate delay, and condonation cannot be granted mechanically where negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is evident. The factual record showed that the order had been received by counsel, the explanation for the prolonged delay was vague, and no adequate steps were taken to ascertain the outcome of the proceedings despite continued business activity. A litigant remains under a duty to be vigilant and cannot shift the entire blame for an inordinate delay to counsel.

Conclusion: The delay was not supported by sufficient cause and was rightly not condoned; no substantial question of law arose.

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed where the seized betel nuts were neither prohibited nor notified goods and the Revenue failed to establish that they were smuggled.

Analysis: Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the seized betel nuts did not attract the statutory burden applicable to notified goods. The Revenue consequently bore the burden of proving that the goods were smuggled. The prior decision arising from the same adjudication order, on materially identical facts, had found that this burden was not discharged; that reasoning applied equally to the appellant.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable because the Revenue did not prove that the seized goods were smuggled.

Issues: (i) Whether cognizance for the alleged failure to furnish a wealth-tax return under Section 35B, without a regular assessment or statutory notice, was liable to be quashed; (ii) Whether discharge from prosecution under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was warranted on grounds of invalid sanction, absence of quantified tax evasion, and lack of prima facie proof of false statements

Issue (i): Whether cognizance for the alleged failure to furnish a wealth-tax return under Section 35B, without a regular assessment or statutory notice, was liable to be quashed

Analysis: Section 35B treats willful failure to furnish a wealth-tax return by the prescribed due date as an independently punishable default. The admitted non-filing of the return for the relevant assessment year supplied the prima facie basis for cognizance. Prior regular assessment, determination of tax liability, or notices under other assessment provisions were not prerequisites to prosecution for this distinct offence. A subsequent return did not cure the alleged default. The statutory presumption of culpable mental state applied, while the existence or absence of mens rea remained a matter for trial. Objections concerning limitation and sanction did not warrant interference at the cognizance stage.

Conclusion: Cognizance and summons for the Section 35B offence were legally sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether discharge from prosecution under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was warranted on grounds of invalid sanction, absence of quantified tax evasion, and lack of prima facie proof of false statements

Analysis: Section 279 requires prior sanction for prosecution, and the sanction was treated as having been issued by a competent authority under the applicable notification. Section 277 penalises a statement known or believed to be false in a verification, account, or statement under the Income-tax Act. Material concerning undisclosed foreign-company associations and investments, juxtaposed with denials in statements recorded under Section 131, disclosed a prima facie case of knowingly false statements. For the accusation under Section 277(ii), prior assessment and quantification of tax allegedly evaded were not essential. At the discharge stage, the prosecution material was sufficient to require trial without evaluating the defence on merits.

Conclusion: Discharge was not warranted and the Section 277 prosecution could proceed, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The alleged delayed wealth-tax return and knowingly false income-tax statements disclosed independent statutory bases for criminal trial notwithstanding the absence of completed assessment or quantified tax evasion.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal prosecution may proceed without prior assessment or tax quantification where the charged provision independently criminalises delayed filing of a mandatory return or making a knowing false statement.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the show-cause notice under Section 74, as amended by a subsequent notice alleging suppression, warranted writ adjudication at that stage.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to submit a reply to the amended show-cause notice, following which the authorities must grant a hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law; questions of law, including jurisdiction, were kept open.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should be revoked after the returns were filed.

Analysis: The filing of returns on 08.07.2026 was noted. No final adjudication was made on the validity of the cancellation or entitlement to revocation.

Outcome: The petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation within two weeks, and the concerned authority was directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration rendered the recipient's input tax credit inadmissible under Section 16(2)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 36(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; (ii) Whether the condition of actual tax payment under Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was met and could be disputed on a ground absent from the show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration rendered the recipient's input tax credit inadmissible under Section 16(2)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 36(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: The requirement that an invoice be issued by a registered supplier is to be assessed on the date of its issue. The supplier was shown as registered on the common portal when the invoices were issued and carried a valid GSTIN. Sections 29(2) and 29(3) permit retrospective cancellation and preserve the supplier's liability for prior tax dues, but do not deem prior invoices never to have been issued or automatically withdraw a recipient's credit. Paragraph 7 of Annexure B to Instruction No. 02/2022-GST is only a scrutiny parameter and cannot add a disqualification not contained in Section 16. The invoices, portal disclosures, ledger entries and bank payments were undisputed, while no allegation of sham supplies, non-receipt of goods or fraud was made.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation, by itself, did not invalidate the invoices or render the recipient's input tax credit inadmissible. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the condition of actual tax payment under Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was met and could be disputed on a ground absent from the show cause notice.

Analysis: The invoices appeared in FORM GSTR-2A and the supplier had filed FORM GSTR-3B for the relevant months. The Department admitted that the supplier had deposited the tax. Neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order alleged non-payment of tax on the relevant invoices; therefore, Section 75(7) precluded sustaining the demand on that different ground. Although the credit claimant bears the burden under Section 155, the genuineness of receipt or movement of goods was never put in issue, and the documentary material produced by the recipient remained unchallenged.

Conclusion: The actual-tax-payment condition stood satisfied, and the credit could not be denied on an unpleaded and unsubstantiated doubt regarding the supplier's tax payment. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A recipient who transacts with a supplier shown as registered and meets the statutory credit conditions retains eligible input tax credit; a later retrospective cancellation may warrant enquiry but cannot alone disallow the credit or consequential liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for input tax credit is determined by compliance with statutory conditions at the time of supply, and retrospective cancellation of a supplier's registration does not, without proof of a statutory deficiency properly alleged in the notice, extinguish the recipient's credit.

Issues: Whether detained jewellery could be released pending the department's revision where no interim stay operated against the Order-in-Appeal, upon the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed therein.

Analysis: The departmental revision had been heard, but no revisional order or interim protection staying the Order-in-Appeal had been issued. Non-receipt of the revisional order could not impede release of the detained goods in the absence of a stay, though the release remained subject to the eventual outcome of the revision and compliance with the imposed conditions.

Conclusion: Upon compliance with the conditions within the stipulated period, the request for release of the jewellery must be considered within two weeks; the pending revision does not bar such release in the absence of an interim stay.

Issues: Whether steel imports covered by bills of lading showing shipment on board on or before 30 June 2026 were entitled to exemption from Quality Control Order compliance and generation of an Automatic Registration Number where registration was sought after that date but within the prescribed arrival-based period.

Analysis: Clause 2 of the order dated 8 April 2026 made the Quality Control Order exemption depend upon the bill of lading recording shipment on board on or before 30 June 2026. The notice dated 19 February 2026 independently required ARN registration not earlier than 60 days and not later than three days before the expected arrival of the consignment, with ARN validity of 75 days. Neither instrument imposed a condition that ARN must be generated by 30 June 2026. The consignments satisfied the shipment-date condition, and the ARN applications were made within the notice's prescribed window measured from their expected arrival dates. An additional registration deadline could not be introduced contrary to the express terms of the exemption and registration framework.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the QCO exemption and ARN generation; denial of those benefits on the ground that ARN was not obtained by 30 June 2026 was invalid.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants, merely named as consignees but having neither filed a bill of entry nor claimed ownership, were importers liable to penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the shipping manager's untested statement and uncertified electronic correspondence established the appellants' knowing involvement in the improper import.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants, merely named as consignees but having neither filed a bill of entry nor claimed ownership, were importers liable to penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Sections 2(25) and 2(26) distinguish action in rem against imported goods from personal penal liability. Personal penalty required proof that the appellants were owners or importers under the definition applicable at the material time, and that they committed or abetted an act rendering the goods liable to confiscation with the requisite mens rea or knowledge. No bill of entry was filed by the appellants, they never claimed ownership, and their statements consistently denied ordering or owning the goods. The adjudication applied an altered definition of importer and did not establish the appellants' requisite status or culpable act.

Conclusion: The appellants were not shown to be importers or owners liable to personal penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the shipping manager's untested statement and uncertified electronic correspondence established the appellants' knowing involvement in the improper import.

Analysis: The electronic material was not collected or proved in compliance with the safeguards under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. The shipping manager was not examined or made available for cross-examination, and no reliable material established that the appellants operated the supplier-domain email account, placed orders, or otherwise caused the import. A bill of lading naming a consignee, without reliable corroborative evidence, did not discharge the Department's burden of proving knowing participation.

Conclusion: The untested statement and electronic correspondence did not prove the appellants' knowing involvement in the improper import or the use of false declarations, in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: Personal penal liability could not be sustained merely from the appellants' description as consignees, while the in rem confiscation of the offending goods remained distinct from such liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for improper import requires proof that the noticee was an importer or committed or abetted the offending act with the requisite mens rea; a consignee's name in a bill of lading, unsupported by reliable and admissible corroborative evidence, is insufficient.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported electric steering-lock assemblies are classifiable under CTH 8708 94 00 as parts of steering wheels, steering columns or steering boxes, or under CTH 8708 99 00 as other motor-vehicle parts and accessories; (ii) Whether the consequential denial of preferential-duty benefit, differential duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the imported electric steering-lock assemblies are classifiable under CTH 8708 94 00 as parts of steering wheels, steering columns or steering boxes, or under CTH 8708 99 00 as other motor-vehicle parts and accessories.

Analysis: The burden of proof in tariff classification rested on the Revenue to displace the declared classification through cogent technical evidence. Under Section Note 3 to Section XVII and the competing tariff entries, classification depended on the functional identity of the goods and the distinction between a part and an accessory. The expression "parts thereof" in CTH 8708 94 00 was confined to components integral to, or essential for, steering wheels, steering columns or steering boxes. The lock assembly did not transmit steering force or participate in directional control; it immobilised the steering mechanism only after vehicle operation had ceased for anti-theft purposes. AIS-075 and the HSN material did not establish that an anti-theft lock was a steering-system part, while the absence of technical evidence left the proposed reclassification unsubstantiated. The residual tariff entry under CTH 8708 99 00 covered the security accessory.

Conclusion: The electric steering-lock assemblies are classifiable under CTH 8708 99 00 as other parts and accessories of motor vehicles, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the consequential denial of preferential-duty benefit, differential duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties are sustainable.

Analysis: The denial of notification benefit and differential duty demand depended upon the rejected reclassification. The complete description of the goods had been declared, and the bona fide interpretational dispute did not establish misdeclaration for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods had already been cleared for home consumption and were unavailable for confiscation, redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not maintainable. The absence of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, mens rea, or other culpable conduct also defeated the extended period of limitation and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The denial of preferential-duty benefit, differential duty demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties are unsustainable and are set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The correct residual classification preserves the applicable preferential customs-duty treatment and eliminates the fiscal and penal consequences founded on the rejected reclassification.

Ratio Decidendi: An anti-theft device that does not participate in the essential operation of a steering system is an accessory rather than a part thereof and cannot be classified under a specific steering-parts tariff entry merely because it is fitted to the steering column.

Issues: (i) Whether a properly raised alternative classification and exemption claim must be adjudicated in a differential-duty proceeding; (ii) Whether redemption fine is sustainable after the goods have been cleared and are unavailable for confiscation; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable absent misdeclaration, suppression, or deliberate evasion.

Issue (i): Whether a properly raised alternative classification and exemption claim must be adjudicated in a differential-duty proceeding.

Analysis: Correct duty assessment in a differential-duty proceeding requires determination of the applicable classification and rate of duty. An assessee may contest the duty demand by raising an alternative classification, including where the Department has reopened the assessment. The alternative classification plea having been raised before the adjudicating authority, its merits required examination along with the related exemption claim.

Conclusion: The alternative classification and exemption claim required determination on merits, with any duty liability confined to the normal period.

Issue (ii): Whether redemption fine is sustainable after the goods have been cleared and are unavailable for confiscation.

Analysis: Redemption fine requires the goods to be available for confiscation. The goods had been cleared for home consumption and were not available for confiscation.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable absent misdeclaration, suppression, or deliberate evasion.

Analysis: The dispute concerned classification and exemption entitlement and was interpretational in nature. There was no allegation or evidence of misdeclaration of description, quantity, or value, suppression of facts, wilful intent, or other deliberate conduct to evade duty. A mere erroneous exemption claim does not establish the ingredients for penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unresolved classification and exemption entitlement require fresh merits determination, while the penal and confiscatory consequences cannot survive on the established record.

Ratio Decidendi: In a differential-duty proceeding, a properly raised alternative classification claim must be adjudicated to arrive at the legally correct duty assessment.

Issues: Whether penalties under Section 112(a)(i), Section 112(a)(ii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against the appellant on the basis of co-accused statements and WhatsApp-chat material, without proof of knowledge or intentional involvement in the import of prohibited or misdeclared goods.

Analysis: Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 requires that statements relied upon in adjudication be tested through the prescribed process; uncorroborated statements of co-accused, where the makers were not subjected to cross-examination, could not constitute reliable evidence. The printed WhatsApp-chat data retrieved from the seized mobile phone was also not reliable or cogent evidence. There was no independent evidence establishing that the appellant knew the contents of the containers, abetted the acts rendering the goods liable to confiscation, or knowingly made, signed or used a false declaration or document. The essential ingredients for penalty under Section 112(a)(i), Section 112(a)(ii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were therefore not established.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under Section 112(a)(i), Section 112(a)(ii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied for payment of excise duty during the period of default under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, where the defaulted duty was subsequently paid with interest.

Analysis: Rule 8(3A) had been declared ultra vires, and the consistently followed view was that a manufacturer cannot be compelled to make duty payment only in cash or be denied use of CENVAT credit during the default period. The defaulted duty had also been made good with interest.

Conclusion: Denial of utilisation of CENVAT credit during the default period was impermissible; the demand founded on Rule 8(3A) was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the refund claim for duty paid on stolen goods was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11B prescribes a one-year period for filing a refund claim from the relevant date. The duty had been paid because the goods were stolen and could not be used in manufacture. Upon recovery of the goods, the judicial release order directing their return created the cause of action for seeking refund. The relevant date was therefore the date of the release order, rather than the date on which duty had been paid.

Conclusion: The refund claim, having been filed within one year of the release order, was within limitation and was allowable in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether mobile chargers sold in single-MRP composite packs with cellular phones are separately taxable at the residual rate; (ii) Whether toner and cartridges fall under the concessional entries for computer systems, peripherals, parts and accessories or under the residual entry; (iii) Whether the remanded issues concerning trade discount, entry-tax set-off, D-IX declarations, interest and demand computation warrant further interference; (iv) Whether alleged defects in the show-cause notice and the asserted non-speaking nature of the orders warrant interference.

Issue (i): Whether mobile chargers sold in single-MRP composite packs with cellular phones are separately taxable at the residual rate.

Analysis: Entry 14 of Part II of Schedule III of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 applies to cellular phones. Binding Supreme Court precedent, followed by a coordinate-Bench decision under the same statute, establishes that a mobile charger remains an independently marketable accessory and not a part of the handset despite being supplied in a composite pack. A single MRP, exclusive compatibility, warranty requirements and the commercial intention behind a bundled sale do not alter that classification. Judicial discipline required adherence to that binding position. The absence of a separate statutory mechanism for splitting the pack did not negate the residual classification, and no arbitrariness in the best-judgment valuation of the charger was established.

Conclusion: Mobile chargers supplied with cellular phones in composite packs are independently taxable accessories falling under the residual entry. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether toner and cartridges fall under the concessional entries for computer systems, peripherals, parts and accessories or under the residual entry.

Analysis: Entries 3 and 4 of Part II of Schedule III cover computer systems, peripherals and their parts or accessories. Entry 97 of Part I of Schedule III expressly excludes toner and cartridges from printing ink. That exclusion, read with strict construction of taxing statutes, indicated that toner and cartridges were not intended to receive concessional treatment under the computer-peripheral entries. Applying the functional and common-parlance tests, toner and cartridges are consumables that are exhausted and periodically replaced, rather than permanent or integral parts or accessories of a printer. Decisions under differently worded State schedules did not govern the Bihar Schedule.

Conclusion: Toner and cartridges are unspecified goods taxable under the residual entry and do not fall under Entries 3 and 4 of Part II of Schedule III. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the remanded issues concerning trade discount, entry-tax set-off, D-IX declarations, interest and demand computation warrant further interference.

Analysis: The factual claims relating to trade discount, entry-tax set-off and D-IX declarations require verification by the assessing authority. Under the second proviso to Section 3(2) of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1993, entry-tax set-off depends upon actual VAT liability arising from sale or manufacture and sale; closing stock does not generate set-off for that year. Liability cannot be imposed on D-IX discrepancies merely by presumption without proof of actual suppression or misuse. Interest under Section 39(4) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 requires recomputation after determination of the remanded claims. The treatment of the recovered amount as tax-exclusive was sustained.

Conclusion: The remand directions and the demand-computation finding remain operative; the identified factual issues must be freshly determined and liabilities recomputed after affording a hearing. This issue is against the assessee insofar as no further interference is warranted.

Issue (iv): Whether alleged defects in the show-cause notice and the asserted non-speaking nature of the orders warrant interference.

Analysis: Full participation in assessment and appellate proceedings, submission of replies and production of documents demonstrated adequate opportunity to present the case. No actual prejudice from the show-cause notice was established. The appellate reasoning, though capable of greater elaboration, addressed the material classification contentions through binding precedent and the functional-consumable distinction. Natural justice requires prejudice, not merely procedural objection.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice or deficiency in the orders justified interference. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The residual-rate classifications of mobile chargers and toner and cartridges stand, while the specified factual claims remain subject to fresh statutory assessment and consequential recomputation.

Ratio Decidendi: Concessional classification of a principal product or its qualifying parts does not extend to a separately identifiable accessory or to a consumable expressly excluded by the statutory schedule.

Issues: Whether interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was warranted to secure the petitioner's monetary claim pending arbitration on account of a strong possibility that the respondent's assets available for execution may diminish or become insufficient.

Analysis: The invoices contained arbitration clauses, and the material prima facie showed acceptance of supplies, correspondence recording substantial outstanding balances, balance confirmation, and assurances of payment. Although disputes concerning reconciliation, credit notes, rebates, interest, and the nature and effect of the dishonoured cheque required determination in arbitration, they did not negate the prima facie basis for protection. The respondent's audited financial statements showed substantial losses, negative reserves, significant borrowings and trade payables, and minimal cash availability. Its disclosed immovable properties were of substantially lower gross value than the claim and were stated to be encumbered. Section 9 is preventive and does not require proof of dishonest intent; objective material establishing a strong possibility of diminution or insufficiency of assets available for execution is sufficient. The prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of serious prejudice supported preservation of the disputed amount rather than pre-award recovery.

Conclusion: The respondent must secure Rs. 32,60,37,480 by deposit with the Court or by furnishing an acceptable bank guarantee, pending the arbitral determination; the underlying monetary liability and all reconciliation-related disputes remain open before the Arbitral Tribunal.

Issues: Validity and jurisdiction of the amended show-cause notice alleging suppression under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Acts, 2017.

Outcome: No final adjudication was made; the petitioner may reply to the amended notice, and the authority must decide the matter after hearing while all questions of law, including jurisdiction, remain open.

Issues: Whether the grounds raised disclosed a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification of the final order under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Rectification jurisdiction is confined to correcting self-evident errors and cannot be used to rehear an appeal or substitute another possible view. The final order had consciously considered the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of the applicants' role in furnishing non-transferable licences, end-use bonds and bank guarantees. The objections concerning importer status, absence of misdeclaration, the scope of the show-cause notices, and the applicability of the penal provision required fresh examination of the evidence and statutory consequences. Such contentions concerned the legal correctness of the concluded penalty finding and were matters for appellate review, not rectification.

Conclusion: The grounds did not establish any mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and differential duty confirmed on the basis of mobile-phone electronic records, statements and extrapolated valuation; (ii) Whether duty, interest and penalties were sustainable in relation to imports covered by certificates of origin found not authentic.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and differential duty confirmed on the basis of mobile-phone electronic records, statements and extrapolated valuation.

Analysis: Under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules 3 and 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, transaction value may be rejected only upon a sustainable reasonable doubt. If rejected, valuation must proceed sequentially through the prescribed rules, with Rule 9 operating as a residual method. Electronic records relied on for valuation must satisfy the applicable safeguards under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962; statements can support such evidence only where they remain reliable and are adequately corroborated.

Analysis: The Excel sheets, alleged invoices and mobile-phone messages were selectively relied upon despite material inconsistencies, absence of evidence from both ends of the communications, lack of forensic verification, and failure to establish the manner in which the electronic data was generated or transmitted. The statements were denied after receipt of the show-cause notice and the makers were not examined before reliance was placed on them. Unrebutted contemporaneous-import data indicating equivalent or lower prices was also not considered. Valuation of separate imports could not be determined by extrapolation from disputed material relating to other transactions.

Conclusion: The declared transaction values could not lawfully be rejected; the differential duty demands founded on alleged undervaluation, together with their consequential liabilities, were unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether duty, interest and penalties were sustainable in relation to imports covered by certificates of origin found not authentic.

Analysis: The failure of verification of the relevant certificates of origin supported denial of the preferential tariff concession for the specified imports. However, there was no concrete evidence establishing the importers' involvement, knowledge, or collusion in obtaining non-authentic certificates.

Conclusion: Duty and interest remained payable only for the imports covered by the non-authentic certificates of origin, while penalties on that account were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The valuation-based demands and connected penal consequences were set aside, with the fiscal liability confined to duty and interest arising from the limited denial of preferential treatment for the affected imports.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs valuation demand cannot rest on unverified mobile-phone records and extrapolation; transaction value may be displaced only by admissible, reliable evidence and sequential application of the valuation rules to each import.