Writ challenge to show cause notice rejected as premature where jurisdiction was not shown to be absent and adjudication remained available.

A writ petition challenging a show cause notice was held premature because the petitioner had already replied and failed to show that the issuing authority lacked inherent jurisdiction. The dispute concerned Modvat credit and resultant excise liability, matters within the statutory authority's competence under the excise framework. The court found the cited precedents inapplicable since the notice was not shown to be wholly without authority. As no prejudice was demonstrated by requiring participation in the statutory adjudication process, the petitioner was left to contest any adverse order after adjudication. The challenge to the notice was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was maintainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and whether the notice deserved to be quashed at the threshold.

Analysis: The petitioner had replied to the notice and had not established any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the authority issuing it. The controversy concerned entitlement to Modvat credit and consequential excise liability, which was a matter falling within the competence of the statutory authority under the excise framework. The Court held that the cited precedents did not apply because the notice was not shown to be wholly without authority. The petitioner could contest any adverse order after adjudication, and no prejudice was shown by requiring the petitioner to participate in the statutory process.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notice was rejected as premature, and the writ petition failed.

---