( 1 ) JURISDICTION of the commissioner for central excise, Bangalore in issuing the show-cause notice dated 10-7-1998 have been assailed on the ground that there is no iota of evidence and therefore the notice is without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are holding central excise registration and are engaged in the manufacture of various grades of polyester chips, polyester films, overhead projection transparency film, in roll form as well as in sheet form classifiable under chapter 39 of the central excise tariff Act, 1985. A detailed classification declaration as per prescribed form under the Rule 173-b of the rules was submitted on 12-10-1995. The items were classified under sub-heading 3926. 90 of the tariff act. There had been number of correspondence thereafter and it is stated that the process carried on was examined and verified from time to time. It is pointed out that the commodity in question falls under tariff item No. 3921 if no grinding is done. The petitioner has developed a machinery which has eliminated the process of grinding. It is pointed out that the machinery is developed in the factory itself for which the information was also given to the respondent, though it was not required to be given and necessary certificates obtained from various departments have been submitted. Petitioner moved an application on 15-4-1998 for change of the classification. It is stated that no action was taken on the basis of the said letter. On 12-6-1998 the factory premises were inspected. The statement of the general manager were recorded which the respondents are misinterpreting and on that basis the classification is sought to be revised applying extended period of limitation ignoring the letter dated 15-4-1998.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision given in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited v Union of India, wherein the question of jurisdiction of the civil court was examined and it was observed that the jurisdiction of subordinate court will not be ousted in those cases coming within the three categories mentioned in paras 5 and 29 subject to the conditions mentioned thereunder in para 30. In this case extracts of h. w. r. wade and c. f. forsyth administrative law, seventh edition (1994) were reproduced as under:"jurisdiction over fact and law summary: at the end of a chapter which is top heavy with obsolescent material it may be useful to summarize the position as shortly as possible. The overall picture is of an expanding system struggling to free itself from the trammels of classical doctrines laid down in the past. It is not safe to say that the classical doctrines are wholly obsolete and that the broad and simple principles of review, which clearly now commend themselves to the judiciary will entirely supplant them. A summary can therefore only state the long established rules together with the simpler and broader rules which have now superseded them, much for the benefit of the law. Together they are as follows: errors of fact old Rule the court would quash only if the erroneous fact was jurisdictional. New Rule the court will quash if an erroneous and decisive fact was (a) jurisdictional (b) found on the basis of no evidence or (c) wrong, misunderstood or ignored. Errors of law old Rule (a) jurisdictional; or (b) on the face of the record new Rule the court will quash for any decisive error, because all errors now jurisdictional". reliance is also placed on the decision given in the case of Victory Glass and Industries v Collector of Central Excise, wherein it was observed that demand-cum-show-cause notice is quashable at the stage of show-cause notice itself when party is liable to exposure to unnecessary harassment. Reliance is placed on applied Industrial Products Private Limited v Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. It was observed that unless a prima facie case is made out by the department, it will be a fit case for interference at show-cause notice s