Show-cause notice challenge fails where disputed excise facts can be raised before adjudication and jurisdictional illegality is not shown.

A challenge to a show-cause notice under Central Excise law failed because writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily used to stall adjudication at the notice stage. The notice alleged breach of concessional clearance conditions and sought extended-period, penalty, and interest consequences; the Court treated the disputed matters as largely factual, including eligibility of clearances, details furnished to the Development Commissioner, and net foreign exchange earnings. Interference was justified only if the notice was wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal, which was not shown. The writ appeal was therefore not maintainable, the dismissal of the writ petition was sustained, and the appellant was left to answer the notice before the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ appeal could succeed against an order declining to interdict a show-cause notice and whether the notice was shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise liable to be quashed at the threshold.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a challenge to a show-cause notice alleging contravention of the conditions attached to concessional clearances and invocation of the extended period, penalty, and interest provisions under the Central Excise law. The material allegations turned on factual questions concerning the eligibility of the clearances, the correctness of the details furnished to the Development Commissioner, and the computation of net foreign exchange earnings. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised to stifle a show-cause notice, especially where the recipient can raise factual and legal objections before the adjudicating authority. Interference at the notice stage is justified only when the notice is demonstrably without jurisdiction or patently illegal.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was not held to be wholly without jurisdiction, and the writ appeal was not maintainable. The dismissal of the writ petition was sustained, leaving the appellant to respond before the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not ordinarily quash a show-cause notice or stall adjudication unless the notice is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise manifestly illegal.

---