Imported 100% cotton, weft-knitted fabrics bearing printed characteristics fall under CTH 6006 2400 rather than the dyed-fabric entry CTH 6006 2200. A Customs laboratory report may establish relevant product characteristics even where obtained to test hazardous azo dyes, unless its parameters are verified, clarified, or rebutted by re-test. An importer's initial declaration and failure to amend the Bill of Entry do not prevent correct classification. As printed fabrics under CTH 6006 2400 fell outside the notified minimum import price restriction, the goods were freely importable; confiscation and penalty were set aside, subject to assessment and payment of appropriate duty.

Penalty under Section 112(b) against a domestic purchaser of improperly imported goods requires material showing participation in the import-related wrongdoing, or knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Purchase under domestic invoices, payment of invoiced consideration and taxes, and awareness that goods were imported do not by themselves establish abetment or the statutory basis for penalty. The purchaser's failure to claim the customs exemption further distinguishes its position from that of the importer. Caveat emptor does not displace the Department's burden to prove the required knowledge or reasonable belief. The penalty was therefore set aside with consequential relief.

Customs valuation rules require reasonable doubt about the declared transaction value before its rejection and reassessment under the prescribed valuation methods. Grounds for rejection must be communicated in writing where required, and contemporaneous-import particulars must support any enhancement. NIDB data alone, without independent cogent material and justification, cannot sustain enhanced import values. An importer's written acceptance of reassessment may dispense with a speaking order by the proper officer, but does not waive the statutory right to challenge the basis or merits of reassessment. Enhanced valuations founded solely on unsupported data were set aside, with consequential relief.

Clear evidence of an attempt to take Indian currency across the border is required before confiscation for attempted illegal export under customs law. Concealment of currency, a general allegation of smuggling, and departure from the place of seizure do not, without evidence that the currency was being taken toward or across the border or intended for a recipient abroad, establish attempted export. Where the seizure material fails to prove that border-directed conduct, confiscation of the currency and vehicle and the associated penalty cannot be sustained; consequential relief follows.

Customs valuation rules require the proper officer to form a reasonable doubt about the declared transaction value and, where required, communicate written grounds before rejecting it under subsequent valuation rules. Undisclosed particulars of contemporaneous imports and NIDB data alone do not support enhancement; independent, cogent material is required. An importer's written acceptance of reassessment removes only the requirement for a speaking order and does not waive the statutory right to challenge the officer's opinion or reassessment on merits. Enhancement founded solely on undisclosed data and acceptance letters is unsustainable, while appeals against reassessment remain maintainable.

Written acceptance of customs reassessment does not waive an importer's statutory right to challenge the formation of opinion for reassessment or the reassessment on merits; it may only relieve the proper officer of issuing a speaking order. Rejection of a declared transaction value requires written communication of the grounds for reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy. A generic assertion that contemporaneous import particulars were shown is insufficient. Reassessment based solely on NIDB data must be supported by independent, cogent and justiciable material. The enhanced valuation was set aside, with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Countervailing duty on imported notebook computers remained assessable on transaction value because the Tariff Act's retail-sale-price proviso does not authorise customs officers to ascertain or substitute an undeclared retail sale price using Excise Act retail-sale-price rules. Goods marked for Government supply and distributed free to students were not packages intended for retail sale, so no retail sale price declaration was required. The disclosed contract, price and supply arrangement, together with conflicting metrology views, showed an interpretational dispute rather than deliberate concealment; extended limitation was unavailable. With no retail-sale-price obligation or duty short levy, confiscation, interest and penalty did not arise. Pending provisional assessments were to be finalised on transaction value.

Finality of a prior remand adjudication bars re-agitation of continued custody where the earlier determination was not disturbed, while preserving the option to seek regular bail. A complaint filed within the period prescribed by section 187 of the BNSS satisfies the requirement for statutory/default bail purposes; cognizance need not be taken within that period. Setting aside cognizance for failure to provide a pre-cognizance hearing under section 223 of the BNSS does not make further remand illegal or create an entitlement to statutory release. The appropriate recourse remains a merits-based regular bail application.

Under Maharashtra money-lending law, an advance at interest against a promissory note falls within the meaning of a loan; lending without a licence is prohibited and renders the loan unenforceable. The resulting liability cannot qualify as a legally enforceable debt for cheque dishonour proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the lender must produce a licence at the threshold in cheque-dishonour or loan-recovery proceedings. Prior cheque-dishonour proceedings did not examine the Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu money-lending enactments and therefore did not determine the statutory bar in an individual pending matter. Applicability of those enactments remains for determination on the merits by the court concerned.

Article 226 judicial review does not permit reappreciation of audit evidence or substitution of an alternative factual view where disciplinary authorities have assessed the audit assignment, audit reports and explanation, unless the decision-making process is legally infirm or findings are perverse or unsustainable in law. Subsequent communications that do not establish timely reporting of irregular transactions during the relevant audit period do not displace concurrent findings of professional misconduct. Treating a concurrent auditor's failure to flag irregular transactions in contemporaneous reports as gross negligence supported a reprimand and fine; the penalty was not disproportionate enough to justify writ interference. The disciplinary findings and penalty were sustained, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Regulatory assets in electricity tariff determination are exceptional deferrals of recoverable revenue, not a routine means of carrying revenue gaps. Cost-reflective tariffs must balance consumer interests with recovery of reasonably incurred distribution-licensee costs. Rule 23 limits a revenue gap by reference to 3% of approved Annual Revenue Requirement and requires a time-bound recovery plan with carrying costs. New regulatory assets require liquidation within three years; existing assets require liquidation within four years from 1 April 2024. Regulatory Commissions must determine tariffs timely, conduct regular truing-up and ensure cost recovery. Appellate supervision extends to monitoring the liquidation roadmap, audit requirements and performance of statutory duties.

Settlement of cheque-dishonour proceedings on agreed instalments resulted in closure of the petition and pending criminal complaints, eliminating any remaining controversy for adjudication. The earlier deposit requirement was dispensed with. The suo motu action concerning unauthorised money lending was also closed after a draft bill circulated among States and Union Territories contemplated legislative measures to curb the practice, with an expectation that fair and proper legislation would be enacted.

Existing State money-lending laws continue to bar unlicensed lending, including lending supported by promissory notes, cheques, title deeds, or other security. They restrict interest under the Dam Dupat rule, prevent enforcement of loans advanced by unlicensed lenders, and criminalise unlicensed money lending. Proceedings brought by a private lender should be stopped at the threshold unless the lender produces a money-lending licence or shows that no interest was charged. Anticipated future legislation does not suspend civil or criminal remedies, appellate relief, or investigations under State money-lending and applicable criminal laws.

Refund interest raises unresolved questions on whether refundable deposits attract 12% or the notified 6% rate, and whether interest runs from the deposit date or only after three months from receipt of the refund application. Divergent coordinate-bench views and the statutory refund-interest framework, including the notification prescribing 6%, require consideration by an appropriate Bench. The questions remain pending for appropriate orders, with no final adjudication on the applicable rate or commencement of interest.

Arm's length price adjustment for consultancy-expense reimbursement remained sustainable because the arrangement arose during the relevant financial year and could not be treated as a recurring issue governed by earlier years. Selection of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method was unsupported by material identifying comparable transactions or demonstrating the benchmarking of the payment. Records also failed to substantiate allocation of the overseas employee's higher salary and related costs to services rendered for the assessee.

Cash deposits during demonetisation were not unexplained money where their nature and source were supported by documented agricultural-land sale receipts, a sale deed, cash book, affidavit, and an earlier scrutiny assessment of the property transaction. Section 69A applies only where money is unrecorded and the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation. Receipt of sale consideration in cash and maintenance of the cash book were undisputed. The perceived improbability of retaining cash for an extended period did not displace the evidenced source, particularly given the stated medical, tax, and intended property-purchase needs. The addition was deleted.

Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Verification of fresh unsecured loans through confirmations, tax returns, computations, balance sheets, bank statements and supporting agricultural-land evidence constituted an inquiry. Comparing loan amounts only with lenders' taxable income, without considering exempt income, capital and other funds, did not establish absence of inquiry. A supervisory view that further verification was desirable cannot equate an allegedly inadequate inquiry with no inquiry. On these facts, the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial, rendering the section 263 revision invalid.

Prior approval of the competent authority is a jurisdictional requirement for reopening assessment under the Income-tax Act. A notice issued under section 148 before that approval is granted is invalid and cannot confer reassessment jurisdiction. Where approval follows issuance of the notice, the notice is non est and the consequential reassessment must be quashed.

Principles of natural justice required a further opportunity for the assessee to produce material supporting claims relating to share capital, unsecured loans, sundry creditors and expenditure. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions, set aside the appellate order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to substantiate its case.

Section 153A permits additions to completed or unabated assessments only on incriminating material found during the assessee's search; external enquiries, third-party statements, regular books and uncorroborated information do not suffice. Allegations of bogus purchases or suppressed production require reliable evidence, including an established purchase trail and proof of non-genuine transactions; unsupported yield estimates cannot justify rejection of books or profit estimation. Valuation estimates alone do not establish unexplained investment, particularly where differences reflect subjective variation. Third-party survey material and loose papers require a clear link, corroboration and fair opportunity to test adverse statements. Cash discrepancies may be explained through contemporaneous cash records and supporting evidence.