Court denies refund request of Rs.2.5 Crores during case, citing coercion issue complexity at interim stage. Deposit subject to final petition outcome.

The court declined the petitioner's request for a refund of Rs.2.5 Crores during the pendency of the case, stating the issue of coercion was difficult to determine at the interim stage. The court emphasized that the deposit would be subject to the final outcome of the petition challenging the notification's phrase "used in the manufacture of excisable goods."

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the phrase "used in the manufacture of excisable goods" in a notification.
2. Eligibility for partial exemption from payment of BCD for imported Denatured Ethyl Alcohol.
3. Validity of forcible collection of Rs.2.5 Crores without show cause notice.
4. Coercion and voluntariness of the payment made by the petitioner.
5. Entitlement to refund of the amount during the pendency of the writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the phrase "used in the manufacture of excisable goods" in a notification, claiming it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. They sought partial exemption for imported Denatured Ethyl Alcohol not used for manufacturing excisable goods. The petitioner also contested the validity of the forced collection of Rs.2.5 Crores without due process.
2. The petitioner argued that the payment of Rs.2.5 Crores was made under coercion, supported by internal communications and a draft letter expressing reluctance to make the payment. The petitioner claimed the respondents did not rebut the coercion allegations and forced modifications to the letter. They sought a refund during the pendency of the petition.
3. In response, the respondents contended that the payment was voluntary, citing a letter from the petitioner accepting the duty liability and signaling intent to pay. They argued that the petitioner made the payment based on their own assessment of the duty and that no coercion was exerted.
4. The court considered the concept of coercion under the Indian Penal Code and the need for it to be pleaded and proved. It noted the larger issue of the notification's challenge and the question of whether the payment was voluntary or involuntary. The court highlighted the requirement for a greater degree of proof to establish coercion.
5. Ultimately, the court found it difficult to conclude on coercion at the interim stage. It declined the petitioner's request for a refund, stating that the relief could be considered at the final disposal of the petition. The court emphasized that the deposit of Rs.2.5 Crores would be subject to the final outcome of the case.

---