ORDER S.J. Vazifdar, C.J. (Oral) - The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 - Commissioner of Central Excise to pass an order adjudicating a show cause notice dated 8-2-2012. 2. Normally, this relief would be granted as authorities cannot refuse to adjudicate a show cause notice merely because on account of a judgment of Court the authorities would be bound to pass an order in favour of the assessee. The respondents, however, claim that they are not bound to adjudicate the show cause notice in view of a Circular dated 14-12-1995 which entitles them to place matters in a "call book" inter alia on account of the respondents having challenged the judgments of various High Courts' before the Supreme Court. The judgments of the High Court striking down the validity of the circular have been challenged by the respondents before the Supreme Court and notice has been issued by the Supreme Court. 3. We will assume for now that the circular is valid. The show cause notice, however, has been issued in respect of 40 services in respect whereof the petitioners took input tax credit. It is only in respect of three of these services that the petitioners relied upon the judgments which have been challenged by the respondents and on account whereof the respondents have placed the matter in the call book relying upon the said circular. In respect of the other 37 services, the correctness of the judgments dealing with the validity of the said circular and the correctness of the judgments dealing with the issue on merits, namely, whether input tax credit can be taken does not even arise. It is admitted that each of the 40 services have to be dealt with separately. In other words, the decision on merits with respect to the three services will not reflect upon the petitioners' entitlement to input tax credit in respect of the other 37 services. 4. As notice has been issued by the Supreme Court, we will, at this stage, not decide the issue regarding the validity of the circular. However, there is no justification for the respondents not adjudicating the show cause notice in respect of the other 37 services. 4. As notice has been issued by the Supreme Court, we will, at this stage, not decide the issue regarding the validity of the circular. However, there is no justification for the respondents not adjudicating the show cause notice in respect of the other 37 services. At the cost of repetition, the decision regarding the entitlement to input tax credit on the three services and the decision on the validity of the circular will have no bearing on the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to take input tax credit in respect of the other 37 services. 5. In the circumstances, the respondents shall adjudicate the impugned show cause notice dated 8-2-2012 in respect of the said 37 services. We record Mr. Bansal's statement that the petitioner will not contend that the appeal, if any, against the decision with respect to the remaining three services is not maintainable on account of the tax effect thereof being less than what is prescribed by any circulars. 6. Thus, the petition regarding the other three services, namely, authorised service station, freight outward and outdoor catering service is adjourned to 8-5-2018.