Interim status quo and stay protection pending appeal were declined because a Civil Court restraint order remained in force, competing property interests were asserted, and applications for intervention and impleadment were pending. Objections and rejoinder were directed, and the application was listed with the appeal. No additional interim protection was granted at that stage.

Committee of Creditors' status as a statutory entity with juristic personality and an independent right to litigate remains unresolved. Consent-based impleadment permits the CoC to participate and be heard in the pending insolvency application, without determining whether it is a necessary party. Earlier orders were set aside for that purpose, and the matter must be relisted within two weeks for expeditious disposal.

Oppression and mismanagement proceedings under the Companies Act require issue-specific, reasoned assessment of material allegations, including asset transfers, dilution, debt-to-equity conversion, valuation, and allotment; commercial rationale alone cannot replace examination of contrary evidence or cumulative effects. Perjury or misrepresentation consequences require identification of the precise false statement, supporting material, intentional falsity, and a meaningful opportunity to respond, consistent with audi alteram partem. Equitable relief may be refused under the clean hands doctrine only on clear, cogent findings of deliberate misrepresentation, particularly where contemporaneous corporate records reasonably bear competing interpretations.

NCLT proceedings concerning a prima facie demerger and vesting into a resulting company were placed in abeyance because governmental proceedings examining an investigation report remained pending. Limited protective directions required the statutory authorities to complete that examination and submit their report to the NCLT before further adjudication. The abeyance was ordered for three months, pending completion of the governmental proceedings and placement of the report before the NCLT.

Nominee directors appointed by a financial corporation are protected from liability arising solely from their directorship, including for good-faith acts or omissions, under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948. Criminal liability for failure to comply with a deposit-repayment direction requires material linking the nominee director to the company's day-to-day management, solicitation of deposits, or repayment obligations. A non-executive independent nominee director without such involvement is not a concerned officer liable for the breach.

Failure to consider an applicable Board circular and directly relevant precedent may constitute a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under the Customs Act where correction requires no fresh evidence, reappreciation, or review of the merits. For shipping bills dated before 31 December 2008, the declared FOB value must be treated as a cum-duty price for export-duty assessment under the circular's transitional direction. Assessable value is consequently determined by working backwards from the FOB value. The changed valuation method applies only from 1 January 2009, so post-transition decisions do not govern pre-transition shipping bills.

Foreign-origin black pepper and socks not notified as goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 do not trigger a reversed burden of proof. Revenue must establish smuggling through adequate evidence before confiscation or penalties can be sustained. Failure to discharge that burden means the goods are not liable to confiscation and penalties cannot be imposed.

Gold bracelets recovered during frisking at a domestic airport, outside a customs area, require a reasonable belief supported by circumstances that they are smuggled before seizure under the Customs Act, 1962. Recovery at the domestic airport, recorded purity of the bracelets, and the absence of an investigation establishing smuggling do not support that belief. Section 110 therefore does not apply on these facts; the bracelets are not liable to confiscation and no penalty is imposable.

Customs exemption for electronic paver finishers depends on the goods' capability and characteristics in their imported condition. A machine capable of paving only up to the prescribed width through optional external bolt-on extensions does not satisfy an exemption condition requiring that capability, particularly where the extensions were neither supplied nor declared. Non-disclosure of the machine's actual paving capability and the need for external additions constitutes misdeclaration of material particulars, supporting extended-period duty recovery. Personal penalty requires proof of a director's specific act or omission causing the misdeclaration; without individual culpability, such penalty is unsustainable.

Preferential-duty exemption based on a certificate of origin cannot be denied unless reliable, certificate-specific retroactive verification establishes that the certificate is invalid or non-genuine. Verification relating to a different certificate or another importer cannot be applied mechanically to separately issued certificates. Where imported goods are unavailable for confiscation and were not released against a bond or undertaking, redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is not imposable. These principles preserve the preferential tariff claim and negate consequential differential duty, interest, penalty and confiscatory liability.

Penalty for improper importation under Section 112(a) requires an act or omission that renders goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. Where goods are unavailable for confiscation and no redemption fine is imposed, and the related duty demand and importer penalties based on the same reclassification have been set aside, penal liability of a director lacks a legal basis. The director's penalty is therefore unsustainable.

EPCG exemption under Notification No. 16/2015-Customs remains available despite non-registration of the authorisation at the original import port, non-production for debit at clearance, and absence of the prescribed undertaking where capital goods were initially imported under the export-oriented unit scheme and later debonded. Furnishing the EPCG authorisation and required particulars to jurisdictional authorities, obtaining exit and no-dues permissions, undertaking the export obligation, and providing an undertaking for future duty shortfall substantially satisfy the notification's conditions. Such defects constitute procedural lapses rather than substantive non-compliance warranting denial of exemption.

EPCG export-obligation enforcement cannot be initiated before expiry of the authorisation's prescribed fulfilment period. Where a six-year period is fixed, alleged non-fulfilment cannot trigger enforcement under the applicable customs exemption framework before that period ends, rendering such proceedings premature. Revenue-neutrality observations concerning IGST payment and corresponding input tax credit do not conclusively establish entitlement where they remain subject to verification. Revenue may examine the underlying data and determine the IGST credit issue in fresh proceedings lawfully initiated after expiry of the export-obligation period.

Customs broker licences already revoked under a valid earlier order cannot be revoked again through separate proceedings for another alleged violation. Where multiple grounds for revocation exist, they should be addressed in the same revocation proceedings. A subsequent order purporting to revoke an already revoked licence lacks statutory authority and creates unnecessary multiplicity of litigation, placing the second revocation outside the statutory framework.

MEIS benefits for notified exports were not defeated by failure to mark "Y" in the rewards column against every item in electronic shipping bills. A declared intention to claim rewards, genuine exports, and no customs objection supported treating the omission as a condonable procedural lapse. Marking "Y" for the first item in each shipping bill made the physical-examination objection immaterial, preserving substantive entitlement under the beneficial scheme.

Interest on duty payable upon redemption of confiscated imported goods arises only after the consequent duty liability is assessed and determined through the Section 28 mechanism. Section 125(2) makes duty and charges payable when the redemption option is exercised and accepted; the original Bill of Entry assessment, based on the declared goods description, does not determine liability arising from later confiscation, reclassification, redemption fine and penalty proceedings. Interest cannot run for the period before the adjudication-based determination, but remains payable thereafter where applicable, subject to reassessment and credits for payments or appropriations.

Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 permits provisional attachment after a show-cause notice where the Initiating Officer has reason to believe property is benami, apprehends its alienation, and obtains prior approval. It prescribes no mandatory interval between notice, approval and attachment; same-day action is therefore not inherently mechanical. Cross-examination in summary proceedings is not automatic and requires a request demonstrating necessity. Benami status may be inferred cumulatively where acquisition funds remain unexplained and financial records, tax returns, inventories and banking transfers do not establish the ostensible owner's independent financial capacity. Such material may support confirmation of attachment where consideration is attributable to the beneficial owner.

Section 69 applies only where an assessee's investment and its source remain unsatisfactorily explained. Additional evidence admitted under Rule 29 established that residential property was jointly acquired and that each co-owner made payments through identifiable banking channels from explained sources. The agreement, developer receipts, co-owners' bank statements, TDS certificate and society share certificate did not establish that the assessee alone funded the entire investment. Accordingly, the investment could not be treated as unexplained in the assessee's hands, and the addition was deleted.

Cash deposits in specified bank notes claimed as festive-season sales may be treated as unexplained credits where sale invoices, item-wise stock records, stock availability and supporting operational evidence do not substantiate the source. Exceptional cash-sale volumes immediately before demonetisation and insufficient staffing or related expenditure may further undermine the sales explanation. Reduction of the gross-profit element from the addition avoids double taxation. The amendment to section 115BBE enhancing tax consequences operates prospectively absent express retrospective effect; it does not apply to Assessment Year 2017-18, for which sustained unexplained-credit additions are taxable at normal rates.

Skill-based online card-game winnings fall within taxable income and remain subject to the special tax treatment for winnings; the online mode and the game's skill-based character do not alter that treatment. Taxability, however, requires identification of real net winnings rather than aggregation of gross credits entering an online gaming wallet. Repeated wallet credits, debits and redeployment do not themselves establish taxable income. The restriction on deducting expenditure does not displace the prior requirement to determine whether an actual gain arose. Verified buy-in amounts must therefore be considered in determining net accretion, and a net loss does not create taxable winnings.