9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- 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 IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [ 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER] has passed orders from time to time extending the period of limitation in judicial and quasi-jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jee, Advocates (for CGST) ORDER 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
