Writ interference at show-cause stage refused where manufacturer status and excise liability turned on disputed facts.

A writ court should ordinarily not interfere at the show-cause notice stage in a central excise matter where the core controversy depends on disputed facts, such as whether the petitioner was a manufacturer within the extended meaning of manufacture. The Calcutta High Court noted that the actual manufacturing arrangement and the petitioner's role in supplying granules to independent units required factual determination by the excise authorities in the first instance. It further observed that objections based on limitation and jurisdiction did not justify restraining the departmental proceedings at the notice stage, leaving the controversy to be decided in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere at the show-cause notice stage in a central excise matter where the petitioner disputed its status as a manufacturer and challenged the proposed demand and penalty.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the petitioner, having supplied granules to independent units for manufacture of polythene films, could itself be treated as a manufacturer within the extended meaning of manufacture under the excise law. The Court noted that such a question depended on proof of the actual manufacturing arrangement and could not be conclusively determined on the writ record alone. It held that disputed factual issues of this nature should ordinarily be decided by the excise authorities in the first instance, and that the challenge to limitation and jurisdiction did not warrant interference at the notice stage. The Court therefore declined to restrain the departmental proceedings and left the factual controversy open for determination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits for interference, and the respondents were permitted to proceed with the excise adjudication.

---