Factual communication under Central Excise rules was not a binding circular and did not constrain independent authority

A communication issued by an Additional Commissioner under the Central Excise Rules was treated as a factual note, not a statutory direction. It merely drew attention to an alleged modus operandi and certain exporter-related facts, but it did not prescribe any mandatory course of action or bind superior or independent authorities. The High Court held that a communication of suspected revenue evasion does not become unlawful solely because of the issuing officer's rank, so long as it does not control the discretion of other authorities. The letter was therefore not a binding circular and was not without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the circular/letter issued by the Additional Commissioner under the Central Excise Rules was a binding direction to superior authorities or only an informational communication, and whether it was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The circular merely brought to notice certain alleged modus operandi and facts concerning exporters and did not lay down any operative direction, instruction, or mandatory course of action. A communication of facts or suspected revenue evasion, by itself, does not become illegal merely because it is issued by an officer of a particular rank, so long as it is not used to control or bind superior or independent authorities. Since the authorities remained free to act independently in accordance with law, the document could not be treated as a statutory direction or binding circular.

Conclusion: The letter/circular was held to be only a factual communication and not a direction to authorities across the country; it was not binding and was not without jurisdiction.

---