Departmental circulars bind officers, and a Superintendent lacked authority to issue the Modvat recovery notice.

Departmental circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs were binding on officers to ensure administrative uniformity unless they conflicted with binding judicial precedent, and they could not be ignored merely because they were not issued under Rule 233. On the authority to issue a show cause notice for wrongly availed Modvat credit under Rule 57-I, the circulars treated the Collector or Additional Collector as the proper officer. A Superintendent of Central Excise was therefore not competent to issue the notice, and action taken on that basis was void ab initio. The proceedings founded on the unauthorized notice were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Central Excise was competent to issue the show cause notice for recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the departmental circulars governing the authority to issue such notices were binding on the departmental officers notwithstanding that they were not issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether, in the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Central Excise was competent to issue the show cause notice for recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The circulars issued by the Board on the subject were treated as clarificatory instructions identifying the proper officer for action under Rule 57-I. The later circular dated 15-12-1987 clarified that where Modvat credit was wrongly availed, the show cause notice and consequential action were to be taken by the Collector or Additional Collector. In that legal setting, the Superintendent was not the authority empowered to issue the notice for recovery of the credit.

Conclusion: The Superintendent of Central Excise was not competent to issue the show cause notice, and the notice issued by him was void ab initio.

Issue (ii): Whether the departmental circulars governing the authority to issue such notices were binding on the departmental officers notwithstanding that they were not issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs were held binding on departmental officers to ensure uniformity and discipline in administration, unless they were contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court or the High Court. The mere fact that a circular was administrative in character or not issued under Rule 233 did not permit officers to disregard it. The contrary circulars could not be ignored by the department, and the officers were bound to follow the governing circulars until displaced by binding judicial law.

Conclusion: The departmental circulars were binding on the officers, and they could not refuse to act in accordance with them merely because they were not issued under Rule 233.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered in favour of the assessee, and the proceedings initiated on the basis of the unauthorized show cause notices were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Departmental circulars binding on officers must be followed unless they are contrary to binding judicial precedent, and action taken by an officer lacking authority under the governing circular is invalid.

---