Dismissed

Century Aluminium Mfg Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner-Kolkata(Port)

CESTAT27 Oct 2025C/75361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal for exceeding the permissible time limit for filing an appeal against an assessment order, finding the delay excessive and not condonable, with no hearing conducted for the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for exceeding the time limit for filing appeals.

Century Aluminium Mfg Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner-Kolkata(Port) — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 2

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 75361 of 2021

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS(PORT)/AKR/186/2020 dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), 3^rd Floor, Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001)

¶5

M/s. Century Aluminium Mfg. Co. Limited : Appellant

¶6

Raja Road, Sukchar, Sodepur, 24 Pgs. (North), West Bengal

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Commissioner of Customs (Port) 15/1, Strand Road, 3^rd Floor, Custom House, Kolkata – 700 001

¶9

: Respondent

¶10

APPEARANCE:

¶11

None for the Appellant

¶12

Shri Tariq Sulaiman, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

HON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶15

FINAL ORDER NO. 77574 / 2025

¶16

DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 27.10.2025

¶17

ORDER: [PER SHRI R. MURALIDHAR]

¶18

No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

¶19

1.1. In the interest of justice, the appeal was taken up for disposal with the help of the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue appearing before us. He points out that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that against the Assessment Order dated 31.05.2018, the appeal has been filed by the appellant before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 04.12.2018, with a delay of about 187 days.

¶20

Page 2 of 2

¶21

Appeal No.: C/75361/2021-DB

¶22

On going through the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the factual details given therein, we find that the appellant has exceeded the condonable time-period of 30 days after the normal period of 60 days available for filing such appeals. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the case-law of Raghav Industries v. C.C., Amritsar [2008 (231) E.L.T. 298 (Tri. – Del.)] and dismissed their appeal. We do not see any reason to interfere with this reasoned order.

¶23

3. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant.

¶24

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(R. MURALIDHAR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶29

Sdd

Century Aluminium Mfg Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner-Kolkata(Port)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Century Aluminium Mfg Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner-Kolkata(Port)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basuna Traders vs Cochin-cus

Ladhubhai Keshav Lodhari vs Jamnagar(prev)

The Principal Commissioner Customs Bangalore vs M/s. Cast Craft Pvt. Ltd.

Ritesh Kumar Solanki vs Mysore

Bharat Mines And Minerals vs Chennai (port Export)

Kolkata(port) vs Kco Aluminium LLP

Larsen and Toubro Limited vs Commissioner of Customs - Chennai II (Import Commissionerate)

Sam Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs Chennai (Port Export)