B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure Code may be disposed of by a common order since the question involved requiring determination of this Court in all these petitions is one and the same. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 5425 of 1999 is filed by the petitioners who are A1 and a2. Criminal Petition No. 5159 of 2000 is filed by A3. Criminal Petition No. 5160 of 2000 is filed by A4 and Criminal Petition no. 6132 of 2001 is filed by A5 and A6. The petitioners pray to quash the proceedings in cc No. 48 of 1998 on the file of the learned special Judge for Economic Offences, hyderabad. They are the accused in the said case. ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the complaint, it is alleged that A1 was a 100% export oriented unit engaged in the manufacture of sodium Azide. It is registered with the central Excise and Customs Department vide Registration No. 12 of 1992. It is alleged that A1 did not have permission to clear their product Sodium Azide into Domestic tariff Area (DTA ). A1 is represented by its managing Director, the 2nd petitioner in criminal Petition No. 5425 of 1999. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that acting on specific information that certain incriminating documents relating to unaccounted manufacture and unauthorised removal of sodium Azide without payment of duty into domestic Tariff Area were concealed at various premises, searches were conducted on 23-4-1993 and 24-4-1993 simultaneously at the factory and office premises of A1 company and also at the premises of A5 company which is represented by A6, the residential premises of Ex-Manager of A5, the residential premises of the Managing director of M/s. Vijay Ganesh Chmeicals and Drugs Private Limited, Bidar and the factory premises of A5 Company and in the course of search, recoveries of certain documents/records were made. Panchanamas were recorded. Statements of various persons belonging to A1 and AS companies were also recorded. Panchanamas were recorded. Statements of various persons belonging to A1 and AS companies were also recorded. ( 5 ) ON scrutiny of the records, according to the complainant, it is noticed that A1 Company had unauthorizedly and clandestinely cleared a quantity of 5078 Kgs of Sodium Azide valued at Rs 1 4,70,999-68 ps. into Domestic Tariff Area without entering into statutory books of accounts and without following the prescribed procedure and without payment of central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 22,24,958-69 ps. by contravening notification No. 123/81-CE dated 2-6-1981 read with Section 3 of the act inasmuch as clearances of excisable goods for home consumption shall be on payment of proper central excise duty as envisaged under Rule 9 (1) of the Central excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). It is the case of the complainant that A1 to A6 are liable for penalty under Rules 9 (2), 209 and 209 (A) of the Rules. It is alleged that these facts were admitted by A3, A4 and A6 that they have received the said non-duty paid material from A1 Company and supplied at higher rates that the cost paid to A1 to various organisations mentioned in the complaint. ( 6 ) IT is further alleged that accordingly, as show-cause notice dated 5-4-1995 was issued to A1 to A6 requiring them to show- cause to Collector (now Commissioner), customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad as to why further appropriate action should not be taken against them. Replies were received from A1 to A6 and personal hearings were also conducted. The commissioner adjudicated the case and confirmed the duty demand to the extent of rs. 14,16,910/- as against the total demand of Rs. 22,24,958-69 ps. and accordingly, imposed penalty of Rs. 1-75 lakhs on A1, rs. 50,000/- on A3 and Rs. 5,000/- on A4 and Rs. 27,500/- on A5 vide the order dated 11-3-1996. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, A1 filed an appeal before the Customs Excise gold Appellate Tribunal, Southern Branch, chennai. The Tribunal by its order dated 31-10-1997 set aside the order and remanded the matter without expressing any opinion on the merits. ( 8 ) ON remand, a fresh order has been passed confirming the duty demand of rs. 14,16,910/- and accordingly, imposed penalties on A1, A2, A4 and A5 under the rules. The Tribunal by its order dated 31-10-1997 set aside the order and remanded the matter without expressing any opinion on the merits. ( 8 ) ON remand, a fresh order has been passed confirming the duty demand of rs. 14,16,910/- and accordingly, imposed penalties on A1, A2, A4 and A5 under the rules. ( 9 ) IT is the specific case of the complainant that from the findings of adjudication, it is clearly apparent that Al, a2, A3 and A4 have violated various provisions of the Act and the rules by not obtaining the permission for Domestic Tariff area clearance of Sodium Azide. They have failed to pay the central excise duty due on the said clearance. The clearances were not shown in the statutory records as is required under the rules. It is alleged that a5 and A6 have violated the provisions of the Act by receiving the aforesaid non- duty paid Sodium Azide from A1. The accused were fully aware of the rules and regulations. It is under the those circumstances, the complaint has been filed. The learned Special Judge for Economic offences had taken the complaint on file. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners brings to the notice of the Court that the central Board of Excise and Customs which is the highest authority constituted under the provisions of the Act for the purposes of administration took the policy decision deciding that the monetary limit for initiation of prosecution be enhanched from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs so as to ensure better utilisation of manpower, time and resources of the Department and accordingly, issued revised circular dated 12-12-1997. ( 11 ) IN this batch of petitions, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the circular reflecting the policy decision of the Board, no prosecution as such could have been launched against the petitioners herein inasmuch as the amount involved in the instant case is only a sum of rs. 14,16,910/ -. It is submitted that the complaint in the present case has been filed on 23-10-1998 i. e. , after the said circular has been issued by the Board. It is also submitted that even in terms of the revised order, the amount in dispute is only rs. 14,16,910/- and even if the penalties have to be aggregated, of all the persons including the petitioners, it does not exceed rs. It is also submitted that even in terms of the revised order, the amount in dispute is only rs. 14,16,910/- and even if the penalties have to be aggregated, of all the persons including the petitioners, it does not exceed rs. 25 lakhs and in the circumstances, no prosecution at all could have been launched against the petitioners. This is the only submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. ( 12 ) THE short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein against the; petitioners suffers from any legal infirmities and whether the very complaint is liable to be quashed? ( 13 ) THE sheet anchor of the case of the petitioners is the circular dated 12-12-1997 purported to have issued by the Central board of Excise and Customs modifying its earlier circular dated 9-8-1990 enhancing the monetary limit from Rs. 5 lakhs to rs. 25 lakhs for launching prosecution. ( 14 ) SRI S. Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the 1st respondent being the subordinate to the board is bound by the circular issued by the board and could not have filed the complaint contrary to the directions issued in circular dated 12-12-1997. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court is ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of central Excise, 1996 (87) ELT 19 (SC), in the support of the submission that the departmental circulars issued by the Board are binding upon all the authorities including the 1st respondent herein. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that the central Excise Officers are obliged to observe and follow the orders, instructions and directions issued by the Board in its perception considering it necessary or expedient to issue such instructions to maintain and achieve uniformity in all its actions. ( 15 ) THERE is no difficulty whatsoever to hold that such circulars and policy decisions of the Board are not advisory in character but binding on the Central Excise officers. ( 16 ) IN UCO Bank v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 889, the same principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court. ( 15 ) THERE is no difficulty whatsoever to hold that such circulars and policy decisions of the Board are not advisory in character but binding on the Central Excise officers. ( 16 ) IN UCO Bank v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 889, the same principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court. It is held that the central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Income Tax Act has power, inter alia to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 119 of the Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. The principle is the same as the one in Ranadey micronutrients case (supra ). ( 17 ) THE question that falls for consideration in the instant case is not as to whether the 1st respondent is bound by the circular issued by the Central Board of excise and Customs. May be, the 1st respondent is bound by the circulars. But the question that falls for consideration is as contended by the learned Sepecial Public prosecutor is as to whether the circular is applicable to the facts on hand? ( 18 ) LEARNED Special Public Prosecutor brings to my notice the circular dated 9-8-1990 under which a decision has been taken to issue guidelines revising the earlier guidelines in the matter of launching of prosecutions under the Act, Guide line (iii) which is not altered by the subsequent circular dated 12-12-1997 says that in the case of habitual offenders, the total amount of duty involved in various offences may be taken into account while deciding whether prosecution is called for. It further says"more over, if there is evidence to show that the person or the company has been systematically engaged in evasion over a period of time and evidence to prove mala fides is available prosecution should be considered irrespective of the monetary limit. " ( 19 ) THIS particular guideline enshrined in the circular dated 9-8-1990 is in no manner altered by the circular dated 12-12-1997. What is altered by the subsequent circular dated 12-12-1997, is only with regard to enhancing the monetary limit from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs. Therefore, the 1st respondent-complainant is equally bound by the earlier circular dated 9-8-1990. What is altered by the subsequent circular dated 12-12-1997, is only with regard to enhancing the monetary limit from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs. Therefore, the 1st respondent-complainant is equally bound by the earlier circular dated 9-8-1990. ( 20 ) THE question now that would arise for consideration is as to whether is there anything from the complaint evidencing that the petitioners-accused are habitual evaders (mentioned as offenders in the circular) and as to whether the company or the persons have been systematically engaged in evasion over a period of time. ( 21 ) IN the complaint itself it is stated that the period of offence alleged against the petitioners-accused the spread over from 7-12-1990 to 14-7-1992. It is therefore clear from the allegations made in the complaint that the alleged contravention and evasion in the matter of payment of excise duty is not in relation to any particular incident. It is spread over a period of two years. This Court at this stage is bound to read the whole of the complaint and the allegations made therein together and take the allegations and averments made therein as true since it would not be possible for this Court to express any opinion about the truth or otherwise of the allegations. If the allegations made in the complaint are so read, the offence alleged against the petitioners is clearly spread over for more than two years. Therefore, clause (iii) of the guidelines framed and enunciated in the circular dated 9-8-1990 would be applicable. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent acted contrary to the circulars issued by the Board. ( 22 ) LEARNED Special Public Prosecutor would also urge that the circular dated 12-12-1997 is perspective in its nature. Accordingly to the learned Special Public prosecutor enhancement of the monetary limit from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs is to be read in the proper context particular in view of what is stated in the same circular that it is perspective in its operation. ( 23 ) I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned Special public Prosecutor. It is clear that if the evasion of the excise duty is upto Rs. 25 lakhs, the competent authority perhaps may be justified not to launch prosecution provided such evasion of excise duty is for the period subsequent to 12-12-1997. ( 23 ) I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned Special public Prosecutor. It is clear that if the evasion of the excise duty is upto Rs. 25 lakhs, the competent authority perhaps may be justified not to launch prosecution provided such evasion of excise duty is for the period subsequent to 12-12-1997. In the instant case, the alleged evasion and contravention relates to the period from 7-12-1990 to 14-7-1992. The circular dated 12-12-1997 is perspective in its operation. It would be applicable in cases where the contravention and evasion of the excise duty is subsequent to 12-12-1997. In respect of the evasions and contraventions prior to 12-12-1997, the specified limit of Rs. 25 lakhs would not be applicable. ( 24 ) THE next question that falls for consideration is whether the Court taking cognizance of the complaint is bound by such circulars as the one issued by the Board? ( 25 ) IN Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer, 1993 (66) ELT 13 , justice Jeevan Reddy, speaking for the supreme Court held thus: "clarifications/circulars issued by the Central government and/or State Government are concerned, they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the Courts. It is true that those clarifications and circulars were communicated to the concerned dealers but even so nothing prevents the State from recovering the tax, if in truth such tax was leviable according to law. There can be no estoppel against the statute. The understanding of the Government, whether is favour or against the assessee, is nothing more than its understanding and opinion. It is doubtful whether such clarifications and circulars bind the quasi-judicial functioning of the authorities under the Act. While acting in quashi-judicial capacity, they are bound by law and not by any administrative instructions, opinion, clarifications or circulars. " Law is what is declared by this court and the High Court - to wit, it is for this Court and the High Court to declare what does a particular provision of statute say, and not for the executive. ( 26 ) THE said observations were made while interpreting the provisions of the andhra Pradesh General Sales Act. The principle and the ratio would be applicable in interpreting the provisions of the Act on hand also. ( 26 ) THE said observations were made while interpreting the provisions of the andhra Pradesh General Sales Act. The principle and the ratio would be applicable in interpreting the provisions of the Act on hand also. Therefore, the ultimate question would be as to whether the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and the statutory notifications issued from time to time ? ( 27 ) IT is for the Court to decide as to whether there is any contravention as alleged by the respondent-complainant. In my considered opinion, even if the prosecution is launched by an authority contrary to the circular issued by the Board, the prosecution itself is not liable to be quashed. In an appropriate case, may be it shall be open to the authorities concerned to proceed against such officers for violating the circulars or policy decisions so taken by the Board. But once the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction takes cognizance of the complaint, the same cannot be quashed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. PC on the ground that the prosecution has been launched by an officer ignoring the circulars/instructions/guidelines issued by the superior officers or the Board of Central Excise and Customs, as the case may be. ( 28 ) IT is well settled that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 cr. PC nomrally does not interfere and exercise its power to quash the very complaint. Interference by this Court is only in rarest of rare cases. In the normal circumstances, the proceedings must be allowed to go on culminating in the verdict by the competent Court of jurisdiction. This court interferes only to prevent manifest abuse of judicial process which may result in manifest injustice. ( 29 ) THE question as to whether there is any contravention at all as alleged by the respondent-complainant in the complaint is the subject-matter that has to be gone into by the learned Special Judge during the course of enquiry and trial. No opinion need be expressed by this Court at this stage nor would it be possible for this Court to express any opinion. ( 30 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, this batch of criminal petitions shall stand dismissed. No opinion need be expressed by this Court at this stage nor would it be possible for this Court to express any opinion. ( 30 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, this batch of criminal petitions shall stand dismissed. The learned trial Judge shall proceed with the enquiry and trial in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations, if any made in this order as they are confided only for the purposes of disposal of these petitions. ( 31 ) HOWEVER, the learned Special Judge may consider the request of any of the petitioners for dispensing with their personal attendance on every date of hearing subject to such terms and conditions as he may consider fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and permit all of them to be represented by one such petitioner. ( 32 ) HOWEVER, it shall be open to the learned Special Judge to enforce the attendance of the petitioners herein on the first date of hearing so that their request for dispensing with their presence could be considered in accordance with law.