JUDGMENT The first question which falls for consideration is whether a notice as provided under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was given to the petitioners within six months of the date of the seizure. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners there in nothing on record to show that such a notice was given to the petitioners within six months. The respondents have averred that a notice dated 25.9.69 was served on the petitioners under clause (e) of S. 124 of the Customs Act, but reading Annexure-R 3 and Annexure R-4 it is manifest that no notice dated 25.9.89 was served on the petitioners. Even the copy of the notice has also not been filed by the respondents with the acknowledgment of the aforesaid notice by the petitioners. The acknowledgment Annexure-R 4 is pertaining to show cause notice dated 13.9.1939 along with memorandum of charges and copies of the documents shown in the list of documents; whereas the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Neema places reliance on Annexure-R 3, the report of the Jailor. How the two documents Annexure-R 3 and Annexure-R 4 which have been filed before us by the respondents do not show that a show cause notice under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was served on the petitioners. If such a notice was given a copy of that notice should have been on the record of the respondents. Now Annexure-R 3 is a letter from the jailor that show cause notice dated 25.9.89 was served on Dhanya Kumar Jain, wheras acknowledgment Annexure-R 4 by Dhanya Kumar Jain is pertaining to a show cause notice dated 13.9.1989 along with the memorandum of charges and copies of the documents shown in the list. A such from reading Annexure. R 3 and Annexure-R 4 together it is menifest that the respondents have failed to show that any notice under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act was served on petitioner No.2 in view of the fact that the acknowledgment of which reliance is being placed by the respondents is pertaining to notice dated 13.9.1989. Now, it is the duty of the respondents to show that a notice under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act was issued to the petitioners and they have received it. Now, it is the duty of the respondents to show that a notice under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act was issued to the petitioners and they have received it. If such a notice is not issued within a period of 6 months of the seizure of the goods, then according to S. 110(2) the goods have to be returned to the person from whose posses ion they were seized. S. 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of S. 124 within six months of the seizure of goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. It has also been argued that under S. 123 it is for the person from whose possession the goods were seized to show that they are not smuggled goods. The aforesaid section is made applicable by virtue of sub-section (2) of S. 123 in respect of gold, diamonds, manufactures of gold or diamonds, watches and any other class of goods which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. It has been stated by both the parties that silver is not a notified goods under sub-section (2) of S. 123. Therefore, the onus does not shift on the petitioner in respect of silver which has no foreign mark on it nor the currency notes. As such the petitioners could not be called upon to prove that the silver and currency notes seized are not connected with any smuggled goods. It is the duty of the respondents to prove this fact which they have failed to prove in the instant case. In view of the aforesaid it is manifest that the seizure of the goods in question by the respondents was without jurisdiction and subsequent to the seizure no notice under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act was given to the petitioners. Therefore, the goods are liable to be returned under S. 110 (2) of the Customs Act 1962.