B. D. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) M/s. Badri Prasad Hari Das, the Petitioner, is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of brass utensils or this the firm procures circles of copper and copper alloys manufactures by rolling mills. These are excisable goods within the meaning of Section 3 read with item 25-A of the First schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). On February 26, 1-973 the Divisional Preventive Party, Central Excise visited the business premises of the petitioner upon information that a sister concern namely M/s. Radhey Shyam rolling Mills had passed on copper and copper alloy circles to the petitioner with the object to evade payment of excise duty. The party seized 167 circles of copper and copper alloy weighing 219. 450 kgs. Assistant Collector Central Excise issued notice to show cause dated 10th April, 1973 to M/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills to which the latter replied on 27th April, 1973. The assistant Collector came to the finding that this firm was guilty of manufacturing and clearing the circles in question in contravention of Rules 52a, 173f, 173q and 197 of the Central Excise rules, 1944. The operative parts of the order dated 1st August, 1971 was :" i, therefore, impose a penalty of Rs. 250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty) only on M/s. Radhey shyam Rolling Mills and order Confiscation of 167 C and C. A. Circles weighing 219. 450 Kgs. to the Union Government under Rule 173q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, M/s. Radhey Shyam rolling Mills is also given an option to redeem the confiscation goods on payment of Rs. 750/ (Rupees seven hundred and fifty) only as redemption fine. The seized goods are non duty paid and time hence duty at the appropriate rate should be charged at the time of clearance. " ( 2 ) UPON appeal by M/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills this order was set aside by the Appellate collector, Central Excise on 2. 2. 750/ (Rupees seven hundred and fifty) only as redemption fine. The seized goods are non duty paid and time hence duty at the appropriate rate should be charged at the time of clearance. " ( 2 ) UPON appeal by M/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills this order was set aside by the Appellate collector, Central Excise on 2. 2. 1976 vide Annexure c with the finding " although the Assistant Collector has tried to argue in his order that the firm of M/s. Badri prasad Hari Dass and the unit of the appellant are sister concerns but except for the above fact and subsequently retracted Statement of Shri Bhagwan Dass, there is no direct evidence to hold that the subject circles were rolled by the appellant. The case against the appellant is, therefore, not established. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I modify the order of the Assistant Collector to the extent that his order imposing a penalty of Rs. 250/- on the appellant unit is set aside, but the order in respect of confiscation of circles will stand. The appeal is accepted only to the extent indicated above. " since the redemption fine had not been revoked, M/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills preferred revision against that part of the order to the Central Government which dismissed the same on 20th November, 1976 and refused restoration of the goods to the petitioner. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED against the confiscation the petitioner has approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) SECTION 173q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereunder the Assistant Collector prescribed m/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills under his order dated 1st August, 1974 provides in so far as relevant. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED against the confiscation the petitioner has approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) SECTION 173q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereunder the Assistant Collector prescribed m/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills under his order dated 1st August, 1974 provides in so far as relevant. "if any manufacturer, producer or licensee of a warehouse : (b) does not account for any excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by him, or (d) controversee any of the provisions of these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the manufacturer, producer or licensee of the warehouse, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a)or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed, or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. " ( 5 ) CENTRAL Excise proceeded as mentioned above against M/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills being of opinion that there was contravention of rules on its part with intent to evade payment of duty and the confiscation was directed accordingly. The promise upon which the Assistant collector proceeded however, received a severe jelt by the finding of the Appellate Collector who ruled that it was not established that the circle in question had been rolled by M/s. Radhey shyam Rolling Mills. There was in his view no evasion of duty on its part and consequently penalty could not be incurred. The Appellate Collector confirmed moreover that "the recovery of copper and copper circles was made from the premises of M/s. Badri Prasad Hari Das. " The confiscation was maintained nonetheless on impression that the goods were contraband and this was also the view of the revisional authority. ( 6 ) FOR the petitioner the claim laid before us is founded upon Section 110 (2) read with Section 124 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 which provisions have admittedly been extended to Central excise duties by notification of the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act. ( 6 ) FOR the petitioner the claim laid before us is founded upon Section 110 (2) read with Section 124 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 which provisions have admittedly been extended to Central excise duties by notification of the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act. Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides : "where any goods are seized under Sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized; provided that the aforesaid of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months. " ( 7 ) SECTION 124 (a) is to the effect that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. ( 8 ) THE conspicuous feature of this case is that though the goods were seized from the petitioners possession there was no notice given to the petitioner which is mandatory under the statutes. In the absence thereof the petitioner becomes entitled to the return of the goods It does not remain open to the respondents to go behind the findings of the Appellate Collector. In the petitioners hands the goods in question could not be treated as contraband the reason being that there was no obligation to pay duty cast upon the petitioner. If at all this could be upon M/s. Radhey Shyam rolling Mills but of that they were exonerated by the Appellate Collector. There being, according to the appellate finding, no evasion of duty by the rolling mills, there arose no question to chase the goods in the petitioners hands. The petitioner evidently on the respondents own showing is not accountable for excise duty. If needs hardly be repeated that M/s. Radhey shyam Rolling Mills was not found guilty of contravention of Rules of 52a, 173f, or 173q of the General Excise Rules, 1944. ( 9 ) THE petition consequently succeeds and is allowed in part accordingly. The petitioner evidently on the respondents own showing is not accountable for excise duty. If needs hardly be repeated that M/s. Radhey shyam Rolling Mills was not found guilty of contravention of Rules of 52a, 173f, or 173q of the General Excise Rules, 1944. ( 9 ) THE petition consequently succeeds and is allowed in part accordingly. The orders dated 2nd february, 1976 and 20th November, 1976 (Annexures c and e) are set aside to the extent these direct confiscation of the goods in question. The respondents are directed to return the goods to the petitioner in view of Section 110 (2), 124 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. There will be no order as to the costs. .