Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. This writ appeal raises a question as to whether the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), in exercise of the power under Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), could issue the Circular No.433/66/98-CX dated 211. 98, impugned in the writ petition, in order to bring uniformity in classification of Fusible Interlining cloth under chapter Heading 59.03 of the Central Excise Traffic Act, 1985. The said circular reads as under: “Fusible interlining cloth- classification of [Heading 59.03] I am directed to say that certain doubts have arisen regarding the classification of fusible interlining cloth after the omission of chapter Note 2(c) of chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff with effect from 13. 1995. Specifically, doubts have been raised as to whether fusible interlining cloth continues to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.03 of the Central Excise Traffic Act, 1985 after the omission of the above mentioned Chapter Note. 2. The matter has been examined by the Board. Chapter Note 2(C) was introduced as a new clauses in Note 2 of chapter 59 in the 1989 budget in order to clarify that fusible interlining cloth made by discrete coating of plastic by dot matrix process would be classified under Chapter Heading 59.03. Chapter Note 2(C) reads as follows: ‘Textile fabrics, partially of discretely coated with plastic by dot printing processes. Chapter Note 2(c) was omitted with effect from 13. 1995. 3. In the 1995 budget the Central Excise Tariff was broadly aligned with the Customs Tariff (based on HSN) and as such chapter Note 2(c) of chapter 59 of the central Excise Tariff was omitted. The omission of Chapter Note 2(c) was neither intended to and nor resulted in changing the classification of fusible interlining cloth under Heading 59.03 of the Central Excise Tariff. This is so because as per the HSN Explanatory Notes (1996, 2nd edition, page 894) textile fabrics which are spattered by spraying with visible particles of thermoplastic material and are capable of providing a bond to other fabrics which are spattered by spraying with visible particles of thermoplastic material and are capable of providing a bond to other fabrics or materials on the application of heat and pressure are covered under chapter Heading 59.03. Classification of such fabrics under chapter Heading 59.03 may thus be considered as an exception to Chapter Note 2(a) (4) of chapter 59 according to which fabrics partially coated or partially covered with plastics and bearing designs resulting from those treatments are excluded from the scope of chapter Heading 59.03. 4. Board is of the view that fusible interlining cloth would be appropriately classified under chapter Heading 59.03 of the Central Excise Tariff”. 2. Chapter Note 2(c), namely, ‘Textile fabrics, partially or discretely coated with plastic by dot printing process’ was introduced as a new clause in Note 2 of chapter 59 in the 1989 budget in order to clarify that fusible interlining cloth made by discrete coating of plastic by dot matrix process would be classified under chapter Heading 59.03. There is no dispute that prior to the introduction of Note 2(C), Fabrics of cotton were classified under chapter 52; if it is man-made filaments under Chapter 54 and if it is man made staple fabric under Chapter 55. 3. Thus said chapter Note 2(C) was omitted with effect from 195. Hence the Assessing Officers were entitled to assess the textile fabrics even under Note 2(c) of chapter 59 between the years 1989 and 1995. The respondent is the manufacturer of various textile products including fusible interlining cloth which is used inside the readymade garments for cuffs, collars, etc., and those clothes are partially coated with plastics. Since certain doubts had arisen regarding the classification of fusible interlining cloth after the omission of Note 2(C) of Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff with effect from 13. 95, the matter was examined by the Board and by the impugned Circular in the writ petition dated 211. 98 the Board was of the view that fusible interlining cloth would be appropriately classified under chapter Heading 59.03 of the Central excise Tariff. The said circular was questioned by the respondent in the writ petition on the ground that it is ultra vires of Articles 14, 15, 19, 265 of the Constitution of India, Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act and the provisions of Note 2 of chapter 59 pf the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 insofar as the respondent is impugned Circular, the Board had in fact modified and altered the statutory provisions and in fact modified and altered the statutory provision. The Challenge was accepted by the learned Judge, who ultimately set aside the impugned Circular. In fact the challenge to the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy was also rejected on the ground that the show cause notice itself was issued to the respondent only on the basis of the impugned circular and hence the provision of alternative remedy would not be effective, as the Assessing Officer was left with no other discretion to adjudicate and assess the goods under any other chapter. The order in the writ petition is put in issue in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue. 4. We have heard Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel for the appellants and Mr. Arvind P.Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 5. The impugned Circular has been issued in exercise of the power under Section 37-B of the Act, which reads as follows: “37-B Instructions to Central Excise Officers.--- The Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963), may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of uniformity in the classification of excisable goods or with respect to levy of duties of excise on such goods, issue such orders, instructions and directions to the Central Excise Officers as it may deem fit , and such officers and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the said Board: Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued— .(a) so as to require any Central Excise Officer to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or .(b) So as to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the exercise of his appellate functions.” A perusal of the said section shows that the Board, if it considers necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of uniformity in the classification of excisable goods or with respect to levy of duties of excise on such goods, issue such orders, instructions and directions to the Central Excise Officers as it may deem fit. The provision is intended to be exercised in the event the various Central Excise Officers are taking different stands in respect of levy of duty by interpreting the various provisions. But the proviso (a) to the said section make it clear that no such orders, instructions or Directions shall be issued so as to require any Central Excise Officer to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. In the light of the above provisions, any order, instruction or direction could only be for the purpose of following uniformity in the classification of excise goods and such orders, instructions or direction shall not be considered to be mandatory on the Central Excise Officers to make a particular assessment in a particular manner only. The show cause notice has been issued only on the basis of the impugned circular for the assessment under chapter 59.03 indicating that the impugned Circular was considered by the Assessing Officer and who is left with no other power to make an adjudication as to the excisable goods to fall under any other chapter. 6. So far as the respondent –assesses is concerned, the fabric in question could be assessed not under Chapter 59.03, but under the other Chapters from 50 to 55 as the case may be. On the other hand it is the case of the Assessing Officer, even while he issued the show cause notice, that the assessment would be made only Chapter 59.03. In view of the very reliance placed by the Assessing Officer over the Circular, the right of the assesses to satisfy the Assessing Officer in the adjudication proceeding to bring the fabric in question under the other Chapters is defeated. The impugned Circular has been treated to be mandatory by the Assessing Officer and therefore nothing remains for him to adjudicate to bring the fabric in question under different Chapters. In that view of the matter, the impugned Circular which has been treated to be mandatory by the Assessing Officer himself is contrary to the proviso (a) of Section 37-B of the Act and on that ground it is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned circular is set aside on the said ground and not on the ground that it is ultra vires of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the impugned circular is set aside on the said ground and not on the ground that it is ultra vires of the Constitution of India. 7. As the adjudication proceedings on the basis of the show cause notice dated 30.11.99 are still pending, it will not be proper for this Court to express any opinion as to whether the fabric in question would fall either under Chapters 50 to 55 or under chapter 59.03, as it is a matter for the Assessing Officer to decide. Hence we are not expressing any opinion on the said issue. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed and the Assessing Officer is directed to adjudicate the issue on its own merits and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity to the respondents as well. Consequently W.A.M.P. No. 947 of 2005 is also dismissed. No costs.