Writ challenge to excise show cause notice held premature where manufacture versus fabrication remained a disputed factual issue.

A writ petition challenging a central excise show cause notice was held premature because the dispute involved a factual question whether the activity amounted to manufacture or only fabrication and erection of steel structures. The court noted that such issues should first be examined in the statutory adjudication process, especially where the excise law provided an appellate remedy and no final adverse order had yet been passed. On that basis, the writ remedy was found inappropriate at the notice stage and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under the central excise law was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory remedy and in the face of a disputed question whether the activity amounted to manufacture or mere fabrication.

Analysis: The notice invoked the excise provisions for duty, penalty, confiscation and related consequences. The challenge raised a factual controversy as to whether the petitioner manufactured excisable goods or merely fabricated and erected steel structures. Such a controversy required adjudication in the statutory process first. The availability of an appeal under the excise law made the writ remedy inappropriate at the stage of a show cause notice, particularly where the petitioner had not exhausted the prescribed machinery and the matter had not yet resulted in a final adverse order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and was dismissed as premature.

---