JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Skyward Rolling & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. along with its Directors and Authorised Signatory challenging Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate, Alwar. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have confined their submissions as to the attract ability of Clause 11.2 of Master Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10.03.2017 (for short 'the Master Circular') issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. This Circular has been issued in super session of different 92 Circulars and Instructions on Show Cause Notices and Adjudication issued by the Board from time to time and therefore rescinded all of them, list of which has been appended thereto. The aforesaid Master Circular addresses references from trade and field formations and provides clarity and uniformity on the issues so raised. The aforesaid Circular covers 31 different subjects. Part I of the Master Circular deals with Demand; Show Cause Notice; Structure of Show Cause Notice; Authority to adjudicate; Limitation to demand duty; Extended period; Applicability of limitation in demanding interest; Demand due to Department Audit or CERA; Pre Show Cause Notice consultation; Authority to issue Show Cause Notice; Unjust enrichment in Show Cause Notice; Changing Practice of Assessment; Waiver of Show Cause Notice and; Call Book Cases. Part II of the Master Circular deals with Adjudication, Monetary limits and other issues; Jurisdiction of Executive Commissionerate; Adjudication by officers of Audit Commissionerate; Cases investigated by DGCEI; Service of Show Cause Notice and Relied Upon Documents; Stages of adjudication; Corrigendum to an adjudication order; Transfer of adjudicating authority; Signing of the order and; Adjudication of SOFs/LAR raised by CERA. In part III, subjects of confirmed demands and recovery have been dealt with. Part IV of the Master Circular deals with Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc.; De novo adjudication; no Show Cause Notice on voluntary payment and; refund of pre-deposit. Opening of the Master Circular reads as under: "Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject: Master Circular on Show Cause Notice, Adjudication and Recovery-Regarding. Kind attention is invited to Ninety two Circulars and Instructions on Show Cause Notices and Adjudication issued by the Board from time to time, placed at the Annexures to this Master Circular. Kind attention is invited to Ninety two Circulars and Instructions on Show Cause Notices and Adjudication issued by the Board from time to time, placed at the Annexures to this Master Circular. These circulars address references from trade and field formations and provide clarity and uniformity on the issues raised. Board undertakes exercise of consolidating these circulars from time to time so as to ensure clarity and ease of reference. This master circular on the subject of show cause notices, adjudication proceedings and recovery is an effort to compile relevant legal and statutory provisions, circulars of the past and to rescind circulars which have lost relevance. Annexure-I to the circular provides list of the eighty nine circulars which stand rescinded. Three circulars listed in Annexure-II have not been rescinded as they contain comprehensive instructions on the subject they address. 2. The matter circular is divided into four parts. Part I deals with Show Cause Notice related issues, Part II deals with issues related to Adjudication proceedings, Part III deals with closure of proceedings and recovery of duty and Part IV deals with miscellaneous issues. 3. The provisions of the Master Circular shall have overriding effect on the CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions to the extent they are in conflict. 4. Difficulty, if any, in the implementation of this Circular may be brought to the notice of the Board. Hindi version will follow." 3. We are in the present case concerned with Clause 11.2 of the Master Circular contained in Part II, captioned as "Other important points", which reads as under: "11.2 Other important points: Cases involving taxability, classification, valuation and extended period of limitation shall be kept out of the purview of adjudication by Superintendents. Such cases, upto rupees 10 Lakhs, shall also be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner in addition to the cases exceeding rupees 10 Lakhs but not exceeding rupees 50 lakh. i. Refund matters (including rebate), shall be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner without any monetary limit. ii. In case different show cause notices have been issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities, Show Cause Notices involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty." 4. The facts of the case, necessary for deciding present controversy lie in a narrow compass. ii. In case different show cause notices have been issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities, Show Cause Notices involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty." 4. The facts of the case, necessary for deciding present controversy lie in a narrow compass. A show cause notice CNo. DZU/INV/CE/G/49/2013/1550 dated 01.03.2016 was issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi (for short 'the DGCEI') to M/s. Chandra Protech Ltd. Silvassa for denial and recovery of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 22,45,79,860/- along with interest besides invocation of penal provisions. This show cause notice was made answerable to the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DGCEI, Delhi Zonal Unit, Delhi. Another show cause notice, pursuant to which impugned Order-in-Original was passed, was issued to the petitioners herein vide CNo. V(H)Adj/CE-74/Alw/132/2017 dated 02.05.2017 by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Alwar for denial and recovery of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 12,86,71,912/- along with interest besides invocation of penal provisions. Perusal of aforesaid two show cause notices would indicate that show cause notice dated 02.05.2017 has been issued on the basis of investigation conducted and referred to in earlier show cause notice dated 01.03.2016 issued to M/s. Chandra Protech Ltd. Silvassa. 5. We have been taken through both the show cause notices and we find that averments of both the show cause notices are having striking similarities at different pages and their contents are verbatim at several places. Similarities in two show cause notices dated 01.03.2016 and 02.05.2017 are listed as under: S. No. Description Para & Page no. of show cause notice dt. 01.03.2016 (P-3), Page 91 to 156 Para & Page no. of show cause notice dt. 02.05.2017 (P-4), Page 157 to 181 1. Para 2, page 157, show cause notice dt. 02.03.2016 (actual date 01.03.2016 – P-3) refers 2. Panchnama dt. 09.04.2013 drawn at premises of M/s Sypher Impex Para 2.4.2, page 112, 113. At page 113 “….. Then we reached the destination and …... but no person was available there…...” Para 10, page 160, 161. At page 161 “……. Then we reached the destination and …... but no person was available there….” 2.1 Do Ist para at page 114 “….. On going through the contents of the above…... At page 113 “….. Then we reached the destination and …... but no person was available there…...” Para 10, page 160, 161. At page 161 “……. Then we reached the destination and …... but no person was available there….” 2.1 Do Ist para at page 114 “….. On going through the contents of the above…... no production had taken place in the said factory Para 10.1 at page 161 “….. On going through the contents of the above……. No production had taken place in the said factory 3. Statement dt. 09.04.2013 of Sh. Praveen Naruka owner of plot of M/s Sypher Impex Para 2.4.2.1, page 114, 115, “…... That he was partner in M/s Chandraprabha ….. but had never seen it being used by them …..” Para 11, page 162, 163 “….. That he was partner in M/s Chandraprabha …. but had never seen it being used by them …...” 4. Statement dt. 09.04.2013 of Sh. Satender Sharma – Auth. Signatory of M/s Sypher Impex & other companies Para 2.4.1.1, page 110, 111 “…... that Sh. Yogesh Singh had one more company …... Know the names of other directors Para 12, page 164, “…... That sh. Yogesh Singh had one more company ….. Know the names of other directors 5. Statement dt. 21.05.2013 of Sh. Yogesh Singh, Director of M/s Sypher Impex Para 2.4.3.1, page 116, 117 At page 117 ….. In 2012 April, he started manufacturing company …..were also looked after by Rimika Gupta….” Para 14, page 165 “….. In 2012 April, he started manufacturing company …. were also looked after by Rimika Gupta …..” 6. Statement dt. 30.05.2013 of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta – Director M/s Skyward Rolling Para 2.4.3.2, page 119, 120 “…... on being shown the statement dt. 21.05.2013 of Sh. Yogesh Singh ….. amount mutually agreed upon by him and Sh. Pawan Aggarwal….” Para 15, page 167 “….. on being shown the statement dt. 21.05.2013 of Sh. Yogesh Singh … amount mutually agreed upon by him and Sh. Pawan Aggarwal….” 6.1 Do 3rd para from top, page 120 “….. During the statement, Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta…. Companies/firm of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Sh. Yogesh Singh….” Para 15.1, page 167 “….. During the statement, Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta…. Companies/firm of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Sh. Yogesh Singh….” 7. Statements of transporters 7.1 Regarding M/s Sahil Freight Carriers Para 2.5.1, page 120, 121 “……. ……. During the statement, Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta…. Companies/firm of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Sh. Yogesh Singh….” Para 15.1, page 167 “….. During the statement, Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta…. Companies/firm of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Sh. Yogesh Singh….” 7. Statements of transporters 7.1 Regarding M/s Sahil Freight Carriers Para 2.5.1, page 120, 121 “……. ……. Bilties/GRs no. of M/s Sahil Freight Carriers …… were not received in the premises of M/s CPL-II….” Para 18, page 170 “…….. ….. Bilties/GRs no. of M/s Sahil Freight Carriers …… were not received in the premises of M/s CPL-II….” 7.2 Statement dt. 09.04.2013 of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Prop. M/s Shivam Transport Para 2.5.3, Page 121, 122 “….. He was the owner of M/s Shivam ….. Office copy may be laying with M/s Star Delta Exim Pvt. Ltd. …..” Para 18.1, page 170, 171 “…... He was the owner of M/s Shivam ….. Office copy may be laying with M/s Star Delta Exim Pvt. Ltd. …..” 7.3 Statement dt. 08.11.2013 of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma prop. M/s Shivam Transport Para 2.5.4, page 122, 123 “….. He did not have his own vehicle ….. so they did not keep the GR with them...” Para 18.2, page 171, 172 “….. He did not have his own vehicle ….. so they did not keep the GR with them...” 7.4 Statement dt. 08.11.2013 of Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma Prop. M/s Happy Transport Para 2.5.5, Page 123, 124, 125. At page 124 “…... He was proprietor of M/s Happy ……... not doing any business of transportation of goods...” Para 18.3, Page 172, 173 “…... He was proprietor of M/s Happy ……... not doing any business of transportation of goods...” 7.5 Conclusion regarding transportation 5th para from top, page 125 “….. On going through the above statement of Sh….. They were earning Rs.100/- per GR/bilty...” 2nd para from top, page 173 “…... On going through the above statement of Sh….. They were earning Rs.100/- per GR/bilty...” 7.6 Statement dt. 14.10.2015 of Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma of M/s Chauhan Transport Para 2.5.6, page 125, 126 “ …... Statement of Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Kalyan …. that Sh. Yogesh Singh was wrongly utilizing their GRs …..” Para 18.4, page 173, 174 “ …... Statement of Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Kalyan …. that Sh. 14.10.2015 of Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma of M/s Chauhan Transport Para 2.5.6, page 125, 126 “ …... Statement of Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Kalyan …. that Sh. Yogesh Singh was wrongly utilizing their GRs …..” Para 18.4, page 173, 174 “ …... Statement of Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Kalyan …. that Sh. Yogesh Singh was wrongly utilizing their GRs …..” 7.7 Conclusion regarding transportation 3rd para from top, page 126 “…... From the above statements of transporters…... goods had not been transported by the above transporters…..” Para 18.5, page 174, “….. From the above statements of transporters…... goods had not been transported by the above transporters…..” xxxxxx 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee argued that as per Clause 11.2 of the Master Circular, in the case of different show cause notices issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities, show cause notice involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty, which according to him, would be the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi where the adjudication proceedings are still pending. 7. Learned counsel for the revenue however objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. However, responding to the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, his submission is that CBEC Circular No. 1000/7/2015-CX dated 03.03.2015 and Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 are applicable only in respect of the cases booked by DGCEI as is evident from the subject of Circular No. 1000/7/2015-CX dated 03.03.2015 which reads as 'Instructions regarding adjudication of Central Excise and Service Tax Cases booked by DGCEI-reg.'. Further submission of learned counsel for the revenue is that present case was not booked by DGCEI, which could be considered for transferring to another adjudicating authority. Moreover, such a request was made by Petitioner No. 1 after more than five months of issuance of impugned show cause notice. Further submission of learned counsel for the revenue is that present case was not booked by DGCEI, which could be considered for transferring to another adjudicating authority. Moreover, such a request was made by Petitioner No. 1 after more than five months of issuance of impugned show cause notice. Furthermore, the request of the petitioners for transferring the case to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi did not fall within the power of the adjudicating authority of the present case i.e. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Alwar and therefore the same could not be considered. 8. We are not inclined to enter into the merits of the case but at the same time we are also not inclined to countenance the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal as the objection of the petitioner-assessee, if upheld, would touch upon the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority. In our view, objection of the respondents with reference to subject of Circular No. 1000/7/2015-CX dated 03.03.2015 that it deals with 'Instructions regarding adjudication of Central Excise and Service Tax Cases booked by DGCEI-reg.' is wholly untenable because this circular is no longer in existence as the same has been rescinded by the Master Circular. This would be evident from list of circulars appended thereto wherein Circular dated 03.03.2015 finds place at Serial No. 86. The respondents therefore would not be justified in relying on Circular dated 03.03.2015. 9. We have gone through two show cause notices and find substantial similarities between the two and we are prima facie inclined to sustain the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent show cause notice dated 02.05.2017 has been issued on the basis of material discovered in the course of investigation conducted and referred to in earlier show cause notice dated 01.03.2016 issued to M/s. Chandra Protech Ltd. Silvassa. We therefore find that both the show cause notices are based on common evidence relied before different adjudicating authorities by the department, thus, giving rise to possibility of divergent views by two different adjudicating authorities. We therefore find that both the show cause notices are based on common evidence relied before different adjudicating authorities by the department, thus, giving rise to possibility of divergent views by two different adjudicating authorities. It is in order to avoid such a situation that the Central Board of Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, in its wisdom, has rightly provided that in the case of different show cause notices issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities, show cause notice involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty. Admittedly, first show cause notice C No. DZU/INV/CE/G/49/2013/1550 dated 01.03.2016 containing denial and recovery of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 22,45,79,860/- along with interest, besides invocation of penal provisions, had the highest amount of duty as compared to denial and recovery of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 12,86,71,912/- along with interest besides invocation of penal provisions contained in another show cause notice C No. V(H)Adj/CE-74/Alw/132/2017 dated 02.05.2017, which culminated in the impugned Order-in-Original. 10. Argument of the respondents that request of Petitioner No. 1 for transferring the case to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi did not fall within the power of the adjudicating authority of the present case i.e. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Alwar, is wholly without any substance as it was always open for him to make a request to the competent authority seeking appropriate order of transfer of the case to the Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi. 11. In view of above discussion, present writ petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned Order-in-Original is set aside. Proceedings pursuant to show cause notice C No. V(H)Adj/CE-74/Alw/132/2017 dated 02.05.2017 are revived to be transferred to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi for decision with the proceedings initiated pursuant to first show cause notice C No. DZU/INV/CE/G/49/2013/1550 dated 01.03.2016 in accordance with law. 12. Stay Application No. 3965/2018 stands disposed of.