Petitioner has approached this Court as the statutory appeal being Appeal No. 23/RAN/2021 has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST & CX-, Ranchi- Respondent no.2 vide order dated 12.02.2021(Annexure-6) only on the ground of failure to make pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty and penalty. The impugned proceedings were initiated by demand cum show cause notice dated 26.04.2018 and culminated in the order in original dated 02.06.2020 i.e., during the lockdown period prevailing in the country.

2. Petitioner has taken a plea that due to financial difficulty during the relevant period of time, he could not make the pre-deposit. As such, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2021. Petitioner is ready and willing to avail the alternative remedy of appeal and make pre-deposit, if an opportunity is given on grounds of extreme financial hardship.

3. Plea of the petitioner has been opposed by the Respondent Department. Counter affidavit has been filed inter alia taking the plea that appeal was correctly dismissed in exercise of power under Section 142(7)(a) and 142(7)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 as per the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since the petitioner did not make the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty and penalty. Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been amended in the year 2014 and does not permit any waiver of pre-deposit. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3380 of 2016 [Suvidha Signs Studios Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Union of India] reported in 2016 (336) ELT 274 (Del), para 5 and 6 where such request was declined.

4. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. The grounds of extreme financial hardship during period is not such which can be outrightly rejected. In order to obviate the difficulties faced by litigants and the authorities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition No. 3 of 2020 has passed orders from time to time extending the period of limitation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The order in original was passed during the peak of first wave of covid. The grounds of extreme financial hardship is understandable. The judgment of the Delhi High Court relied by the learned counsel for the respondent is of the year 2016 and cannot be applicable in the exceptional circumstances prevailing during the covid period.

5. Petitioner is now ready and willing to avail the alternative remedy of appeal and comply the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty and penalty. As such, subject to the deposit of 7.5% of the duty and penalty amount within a period of two weeks, the Appeal No. 23/RAN/2021 shall be restored before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST & CX-, Ranchi- Respondent no.2. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid condition, the impugned order shall remain intact.

6. The writ petition is disposed of