Statutory adjudication prevails over departmental circulars, and writ courts interfere with show cause notices only for jurisdictional or mala fide defects.

Section 37B of the Central Excise Act permits instructions for uniformity but does not allow departmental circulars to direct a particular assessment or displace the statutory adjudicatory power of the excise ; where a circular conflicts with the Act, the statute prevails. The article also states that writ interference with a show cause notice is exceptional and is justified only for patent lack of jurisdiction, incompetence, mala fides, or clear statutory violation. In the absence of such grounds, the noticee should raise objections before the adjudicating authority and let the matter be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether departmental circulars could curtail or override the statutory power of adjudication under the Central Excise law; (ii) whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices were maintainable in the absence of any established jurisdictional infirmity or mala fides.

Issue (i): Whether departmental circulars could curtail or override the statutory power of adjudication under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits the issuance of orders, instructions and directions for uniformity, but expressly forbids directions that require a Central Excise Officer to make a particular assessment or dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. On that footing, circulars and instructions may supplement administrative procedure, but cannot supplant the statute or take away the adjudicatory authority conferred by the Act. Where a circular runs contrary to the statutory scheme, the statute prevails and the officer must act in accordance with the Act and the Rules.

Conclusion: The circulars could not override the statutory power of adjudication, and this contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices were maintainable in the absence of any established jurisdictional infirmity or mala fides.

Analysis: A show cause notice is not ordinarily interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Interference is justified only where the notice is issued by an incompetent authority, suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction, is vitiated by mala fides, or is otherwise contrary to statutory provisions. In the absence of such grounds, the proper course is for the noticee to submit objections and allow the adjudicating authority to decide the matter on merits after considering the materials and hearing the parties. The petitions sought premature judicial adjudication of the merits of the notices, which was impermissible.

Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the show cause notices were not maintainable, and the challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the statutory authority of the Central Excise officer to adjudicate the dispute, refused interference at the show cause notice stage, and dismissed the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative circulars cannot override express statutory powers, and writ interference with a show cause notice is warranted only on clear jurisdictional or mala fide grounds.

---