2007 (1) TMI 79 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses petition for refund & return of cheques, citing lack of evidence for coercion claim.

The court dismissed the petition seeking refund of encashed amount and return of remaining cheques, alleging coercion in procurement due to duty evasion. ... Cheques obtained under coercion - question of fact - refund of amounts encashed - alternative remedy by filing police complaint - relief under Article 226 - precedent not binding on different factsCheques obtained under coercion - question of fact - refund of amounts encashed - relief under Article 226 - alternative remedy by filing police complaint - Claim that cheques were procured under coercion and entitlement to writ relief for refund/return of cheques - HELD THAT: - The Court treated the allegation that the Department procured seven cheques from the petitioner under coercion as a question of fact and observed that no evidence was placed on record to establish coercion beyond the petitioner s retraction of earlier statements. The Court held that retraction alone is insufficient to prove that the cheques were procured by coercion. Even if coercion were assumed without admission, the petitioner was directed to pursue a police complaint as the appropriate remedy for such a grievance. On these bases the High Court found that petitioner had not made out a case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to obtain refund of amounts encashed or return of the cheques. [Paras 4, 5, 6]Writ relief under Article 226 refused; no direction for refund or return of cheques, petitioner advised to seek remedy by police complaint if appropriate.Precedent not binding on different facts - question of fact - Reliance on earlier decision in Abhishek Fashions Pvt. Ltd. as binding authority for refund - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that an earlier order in Special Civil Application No. 23338 of 2005 (Abhishek Fashions Pvt. Ltd.) had directed refund where cheques were found to have been taken under coercion. However, the present matter turns on its own facts; a finding in another case that cheques were obtained under coercion does not bind the Court where factual matrices differ. Thus the earlier decision did not compel relief in the petitioner s case absent proof of coercion here. [Paras 3, 4]Earlier decision not treated as decisive; relief cannot be granted merely by reliance on that order where facts differ and coercion is not proved.Final Conclusion: Petition dismissed: petitioner failed to prove that cheques were procured under coercion; no writ relief under Article 226 granted and petitioner may pursue a police complaint if there is a genuine grievance. Issues:1. Procurement of cheques under coercion for alleged evasion of duty.2. Petitioner seeking refund of encashed amount and return of remaining cheques.3. Reference to a similar case for refund of encashed amount.4. Question of whether cheques were obtained under coercion.5. Possibility of filing a police complaint for genuine grievance.6. Grant of relief under Article 226.Analysis:1. The petitioner alleged that the respondent department procured 7 cheques under coercion due to an alleged duty evasion of Rs. 1,66,77,194.2. The petitioner sought a refund of the encashed amount and the return of the remaining cheques, claiming no liability for any duty.3. Reference was made to a similar case where directions were given for refund of encashed amount by the Department.4. The court considered whether the cheques were obtained under coercion or threat, emphasizing it as a question of fact. The court noted that the mere retraction of earlier statements by the petitioner was not sufficient evidence to prove coercion in obtaining the cheques.5. Even if the cheques were assumed to be obtained under coercion, the petitioner was advised to file a police complaint if there was a genuine grievance.6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that in the given circumstances, no relief under Article 226 could be granted to the petitioner. The court highlighted that the decision in the referenced case regarding coercion was not binding in all cases and depended on the specific facts of each case.