Common show cause notice is valid where liabilities overlap and jurisdictional objections can be raised before adjudication.

A common show cause notice under Central Excise law is not without jurisdiction merely because it names more than one noticee where the alleged suppression period overlaps and the liabilities are interconnected. The jurisdictional objection failed, and the writ petition was not entertained. The petitioner remained free to raise all objections before the adjudicating authority, including the contention that separate notices should be issued if the demand is ultimately found to be distinct.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a joint show cause notice under the Central Excise law on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and illegal was maintainable.

Analysis: The notice covered alleged duty suppression for an overlapping period and related to persons whose liabilities were stated to be interconnected. The Court held that the mere fact that a common notice was issued did not make it without jurisdiction or illegal. The petitioner was left free to raise objections before the authority, including the objection that a separate notice should be issued to each person if the demand was ultimately found to be distinct.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed and the writ petition was not entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: A common show cause notice is not without jurisdiction merely because it names more than one noticee where the alleged evasion and liability are overlapping and can be examined by the adjudicating authority.

---