Judgment :- 1. This petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division, Madurai to return and deliver the goods to the petitioner, cloves weighing 42 kgs. and vasambu weighing 100 kgs. packed in 3 gunny bags marked, A, B and C valued at Rs. 7,140. 2. The goods forming the subject matter of the writ petition were seized on 3rd September, 1974, from the shop of the writ petitioner. On 6th December, 1975 he was served with a show-cause notice that it was proposed to extend the time limit for completion of investigation by three months. On 1st April, 1975, another show cause notice was issued stating that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of S. 111(d) and (p) of Customs Act, 1962, read with S. 3(2) of the Import and Export Control Act 1947. On 28th January 1976, the petitioners counsel wrote a letter objecting to the proposed action pursuant to the notice dated 1st April 1975. But, since nothing fruitful took place he had come up by way of writ petition for the above relief. 3. Mr. K.C. Rajappa, learned counsel for writ petitioner, draws my attention to S. 110(2) of the Customs Act and states that if within six months notice had not been issued, then he is entitled to the return of the goods which have been seized from him. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies on a decision by a Division Bench in the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Somajiguda, Hyderabad v. Amruthalakshmi alias Geetha I am unable to see any substance in this argument. S. 110 clause 2 reads as follows. S. 110(3): Where any goods are tailed under sub-S. (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under Cl. (a) of S. 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be retorted to the person from whose possession they were seized; Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may on sufficient case being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months.” 4. Having regard to the proviso it will be open to the Collector of Customs for sufficient cause to extend the time. It is for this purpose the show cause notice was issued on 1st April 1973. Having regard to the proviso it will be open to the Collector of Customs for sufficient cause to extend the time. It is for this purpose the show cause notice was issued on 1st April 1973. Admittedly, the petitioner did not reply. Therefore, time was extended. That is evident from a reading of the order dated 1st April, 1975, wherein it is stated that “the time limit for the issue of show cause notice was extended by three months in the order C. No. VIII/48/28/74 Cus. Adj., Misc. dated 6th December, 1974. Such order was duly served on the party concerned.” Thereafter, the impugned notice, dated 1st April, 1973 was issued proposing confiscation. Therefore, there has been a proper compliance of S. 110(2) together with the proviso. In such a case, there is no question of he being entitled to the return of the goods. In the Collector of Customs and Central Excise Samajiguda, Hyderabad v. Amruthalakshmi alias Geetha 87 L.W. 318, it is held as follows: “Mr. Dolia would strongly rely on the last sentence namely, that the authorities will not be entitled to hold articles for purpose of S. 124 of the Customs Act and would submit that when once the notice under S. 110 fails, the goods will have to be returned and no other provision of the Act can be availed of. We are usable to read the passage in the Manner he would like as to read. All that the passage states is that when ones time for detention expires, the officer has to return the goods and he will n ot be pet mined to withhold it on the ground that he is contemplating taking action under S. 124 of the Act. It does not say that when once there is no proper notice under S. 124 action cannot be taken under S. 124. This decision does not lend any assistance to the submission of the learned counsel. 5. A faint objection is taken that the show cause notice dated 6th December 1974, is purported to be issued on behalf of the Collector but signed by the Assistant Collector. So long as she order of extension has been signed by the Collector, which is not disputed before me, the fact that the show cause notice was signed by the Assistant Collector will not invalidate the proceedings. 6. So long as she order of extension has been signed by the Collector, which is not disputed before me, the fact that the show cause notice was signed by the Assistant Collector will not invalidate the proceedings. 6. For all these reasons, I dismiss the above writ petition, as being without merits.