ORDER 1. Three gold bars of primary gold weighing 2132 Gms. were seized by the Central Excise Officers on 17-11-1984 at Hubli Railway Station from the possession of the first petitioner. Statement of three person were recorded by the Superintendent of Central Excise and further investigation was taken up by the department. 2. After the investigation was completed, show cause notices dated 13-2-1985 as required, under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act were issued to the petitioners' addresses in Madhya Pradesh. The show cause notices were despatched to all the petitioners by registered post on 22-2-1985. All the notices were returned by the Postal Authorities due to non-availability of the addressees. The show cause notices were thereupon sent to the Assistant Collector, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh on 18-3-1985 for effecting service on the three petitioners. The show cause notices were ultimately got served on the parties on 18-5-1985. That all the petitioners were served with show cause notices on 18-5-1985 is not in dispute. 3. The only question that arises for decision in this case is, whether the service of notices on the petitioners was done in accordance with the second proviso to Section 79 of the Act. The seizure order of the primary gold was made on 17-11-1984. The order of adjudication to be made under the Act is to be preceded by a notice to the concerned person and that notice is required to be served within six months from the date of seizure of the gold. The six months period stipulated in the second proviso may be extended by the Collector of Central Excise or of Customs. 4. On the facts of the present case the contention of the petitioners is that six months period from the date of seizure, namely, 17-11-1984 expired on 17-5-1985 and therefore the service of notice on 18-5-1985 which was beyond the period of six months is contrary to the provisions of Section 79 of the Act. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed in the writ petitions that the primary gold seized from the possession of the first petitioner should be returned to them for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 79. 5. The petitioners have also produced a copy of the order dated 16-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum granting further extension of time of three months upto 16-8-1985 to serve the show cause notices on the petitioners. 5. The petitioners have also produced a copy of the order dated 16-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum granting further extension of time of three months upto 16-8-1985 to serve the show cause notices on the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that the said extension of time granted without giving an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed extension is also bad in law and that therefore the order granting extension is not binding on the petitioners and it is also contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Manick Chand Pal and 35 Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and 3 Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1249 . 6. A statement of objections is filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is explained how the notice could not be served on the parties concerned before the expiry of six months period. It is also the case of the department that the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, had granted extension upto 16-8-1985 for service of show cause notices on the parties and that this was communicated to the parties. The petitioners have also stated that the said order was communicated to the parties and was received by them on 24-5-1985. But, the question that remains to be decided is, whether there was proper service of notice on the petitioners having regard to the interpretation given by the Supreme Court as to the mandatory provisions of Section 79. 7. In Manickchand's case the validity of Section 79 itself was challenged on the ground that it conferred arbitrary power of extension without any guidelines as to the extension that may be granted. The Supreme Court while rejecting the contention of the petitioners held that the power to grant extension cannot be struck down as arbitrary. But, the Supreme Court held that though there are no guidelines governing the limit or ceiling for granting extension, to safeguards must be read into the provision. The Supreme Court while rejecting the contention of the petitioners held that the power to grant extension cannot be struck down as arbitrary. But, the Supreme Court held that though there are no guidelines governing the limit or ceiling for granting extension, to safeguards must be read into the provision. The safeguards to be observed by the statutory authority and laid down by the Supreme Court are :- (i) that the person concerned to whom the gold has to be returned if no action is taken to serve notice as required under Section 79, should be given a notice and on opportunity to make representation against the proposed extension, (ii) the second safeguard laid down by the Supreme Court is that extension should not be granted mechanically by the Collector and such extension should be granted only on being satisfied that the facts and circumstances warrants such an extension. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the second proviso to Section 79 subject to the observance of the safeguard as indicated. 8. The Supreme Court also referred to an earlier decision in Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Charan Das Malhotra, AIR 1972 SC 689 which arose under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act is in para materia with Section 79 except that it contains "upon sufficient cause being shown" in the proviso and the extension being limited to a period of six months. The Supreme Court was considering whether the person concerned should be heard before granting extension under Section 110(2). The Supreme Court held that an opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the respondent before order for extension was made. 9. Though on the facts of the present case there was one day's delay in serving the notices on the petitioners, still that delay is fatal having regard to the mandatory provisions of Section 79. Though the department knew that it was not possible to serve notices on the persons concerned before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure, they did not take sufficient care to get an order of extension in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. The notices sent by registered post to the parties were returned in the month of March 1985 and the department sent the notices to the Asst. The notices sent by registered post to the parties were returned in the month of March 1985 and the department sent the notices to the Asst. Collector, Sagar (M.P.) on 17-5-1985 for effecting service on the parties concerned and though there was personal service of notices on all the three petitioners, all of them were served only on 18-5-1985. 10. Though the law was laid down by the Supreme Court as far back as 1972 in Malhotra's case and reiterated in 1984 in Manickchand's case, the department has, obviously being unaware of the decisions of the Supreme Court, taken a risk in getting the notices served belatedly by one day in these cases. The law has to be understood and implemented as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the light of the guidelines laid down in Manickchand's case. 11. On the facts of the present case, this court has no other alternative, but to hold that the service of notices on the petitioners was not it accordance with Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 12. In the result writ petitions are allowed. As a result of this order the primary gold seized from the first petitioner's possession on 17-11-1984 is required to be returned to the person from whose possession it was seized. I order issue of mandamus to the respondents to return the same within two months from the date of receipt of this order.