OD 14 ORDER SHEET CUSTA/35/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA VS M/S AAHANA COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date: 23rd July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. …for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, Adv. . . .for the respondent. The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for either of the parties. There is a delay of 141 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA 1 of 2026 is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monetary effect in this case is around Rs.50 lakhs which is below the limit as prescribed in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction under F. No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 but the case falls within the exceptional category under 2 para 2 as per Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction dated 02.11.2023.

We have perused the application. We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal where the appellant has not clearly suggested which exceptional clause as read in para 2 as per Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction dated 02.11.2023 is applicable in the present appeal. As such, this appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed as the monetary effect in this matter is below Rs. 1 crore. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) Sp/

OD 14 ORDER SHEET CUSTA/35/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA VS M/S AAHANA COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date: 23rd July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. …for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, Adv. . . .for the respondent. The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for either of the parties. There is a delay of 141 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA 1 of 2026 is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monetary effect in this case is around Rs.50 lakhs which is below the limit as prescribed in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction under F. No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 but the case falls within the exceptional category under 2 para 2 as per Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction dated 02.11.2023.

We have perused the application. We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal where the appellant has not clearly suggested which exceptional clause as read in para 2 as per Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction dated 02.11.2023 is applicable in the present appeal. As such, this appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed as the monetary effect in this matter is below Rs. 1 crore. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) Sp/