( 1 ) THREE gold bars of primary gold weighing 2132 Gms. were seized by the Central Excise officers at Hubli Railway Station from the possession of one Brijmohan Pailya who is none other the first respondent herein. The seizure was on 17-11-1984. Statements of three persons were recorded by the Superintendent of Central Excise and further investigation was taken up by the department. On completion of that investigation, show cause notices dated 13-2-1985 as required under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were issued to the respondents herein. They were despatched by registered post on 22-2-1985. All these notices were returned due to non-availability of the addressees. Thereupon the show cause notices were sent to the Assistant Collector, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh on 18-3-1985 in order to effect service on the respondents. They were ultimately got served on the respondents on 18-5-1985. ( 2 ) THESE facts are beyond controversy. When adjudication was sought to be taken out, the respondents herein preferred Writ petition Nos. 8663 to 8665 of 1985 questioning the power to adjudicate under Section 79 of the Act having regard to the fact that the notices were served on them beyond 6 months reckoned from the date of seizure. The matter came up before our learned brother Justice Rajashekara Murthy. He on referring to the decision in Manick Chand Paul and others v. Union of India and Others AIR1984 SC 1249 , 1985 (4 ) ECC201 (SC ), 1985 ECR514 (NULL ), 1984 (18 )ELT185 (SC ), (1984 )3 SCC65 , [1984 ]3 scr461 , 1984 (16 )UJ1072 (SC ) as well as Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, preventive Service, Customs, Calcutta and Others AIR1972 SC 689 , 1973 ECR1 (NULL ), 1983 (13 )ELT1477 (SC ), (1971 )1 SCC697 , [1971 ]3 SCR802 came to the conclusion that the notices in these cases had been served one day beyond the period of 6 months prescribed under Section 79 of the Act, therefore they were illegal and the consequences must follow. Accordingly he allowed the writ petitions. It is against this order, the Collector of central Excise and the Superintendent of Central Excise have preferred these appeals. ( 3 ) THE only argument of Mr. Accordingly he allowed the writ petitions. It is against this order, the Collector of central Excise and the Superintendent of Central Excise have preferred these appeals. ( 3 ) THE only argument of Mr. Mukunda Menon, learned counsel for the appellants is that in the computation of 6 months period, the day of seizure must be excluded by the application of general Clauses Act. ( 4 ) WE find that this contention is not acceptable to us. This is a special law which lays down the procedure with reference to the service of notice and also ofhe supreme Court to which we have made a reference earlier, on which reliance was placed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, there is no scope for applying the General Clauses Act at all. The notice admittedly being beyond 6 months by one day is bad in law. The consequence would be no adjudication would be possible under Section 79 of the Act. The writ appeals fail. Dismissed. No costs.