Judgment S.Sarwar Ali and S.H.S.Abidi JJ. 1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the articles which were seized from the premises of the petitioner on 29th July, 1982. 2. The petitioner owns a shop named M/s. Geet Mahal at Muzaffarpur. The customs authorities conducted a raid in the premises of the Petitionerss aforesaid shop. They seized 3449 cassettes and four speed king recorders and granted a receipt. The same day a raid was conducted at the residence of the petitioner. In this raid 130 cassettes were seized. Retention memos were granted in respect of both the seizures. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are no longer in legal possession of the seized goods. This is so as the proceedings have to be started within six months of the seizure and in the instant case this was not done. On the Other hand, on repeated demands of release of the seized goods by the petitioner, he was informed by a letter dated 7th March, 1983, that the cassettes had been taken over by the Central excise authorities. Thus, according to the petitioner this handing over of the seized cassettes to the authorities of the Central Excise Department was illegal. The petitioner is consequently entitled to the return of the cassettes as also the four speed king recorders. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that so far as cassettes are concerned, they were seized under a bona fide belief that the seized goods were foreign-made goods and thus liable to confiscation as they had been smuggled in this country. Later the authorities were satisfied that the cassettes were not foreign-made goods but the authorities of the Central excise department seized those goods from the possession of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Muzaffarpur, in the reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules. A panchnama was drawn up at the time of seizure on 28th December, a copy whereof was served on the petitioner on 30th December, 1982. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this taking over by the excise department could not he taken to be a seizure in the eyes of law. We do not think that this argument can be accepted. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this taking over by the excise department could not he taken to be a seizure in the eyes of law. We do not think that this argument can be accepted. Before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure by the customs authorities, the excise authorities moved in the matter. They thought that there was contravention of the Rules. They were therefore, entitled to seize the goods even though it was not in the possession of the owner but in the possession of some other authority. The seizure by the excise department having taken place before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure by the customs authorities there is no question of return of the goods by the customs department to the petitioner. So far as the excise authorities are concerned, they are competent to issue show cause notice to the petitioner to explain the alleged infringement of the Rules. The petitioner should be at liberty to file his show cause and satisfy the authorities concerned that he has not infringed the Central Excise Rules, 1944 . 5. In relation to the seizure of four speed king recorders the learned Counsel contended that they were admittedly in the possession of the customs authorities. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner within six months of the seizure. These, therefore, must be returned to the petitioner. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that notice was issued to the petitioner by registered post but the same could not be served as the petitioner was reported to be outside the station. In paragraph 26 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Muzaffarpur, on 20th January, 1983, by registered post within six months of the date of seizure. Thereafter the notice was displayed on the notice board of the office of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Prev.), in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 . No reply as so far been submitted by the petitioner and that the case is still pending. The learned Counsel for the Central Government produced before us the envelopes which were returned by the postal authority on account of non-service of the notice. No reply as so far been submitted by the petitioner and that the case is still pending. The learned Counsel for the Central Government produced before us the envelopes which were returned by the postal authority on account of non-service of the notice. We are fully satisfied that the statement made in the counter-affidavit regarding notice is correct. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the return of the recorders. However, since the cases are pending, we would direct that in case the show cause is filed within two weeks from today either before the customs authority or the excise authority, the same should be entertained and disposed of in accordance with law. 6. In the result, subject to the observation and directions made above, this application is dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.