JUDGMENT : Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.:—(ORAL) 1. These writ petitions raise identical issues therefore they are disposed of by a common order. The petitioners in both the cases have imported photocopiers machines. After clearance, the said photocopier machines were stored in their respective godowns. At that point of time seizures were made on 06.09.2010 and 16.09.2010 insofar as the petitioner (Vipin Chanana) is concerned. As regards Sanjeev Goel the seizures were made on 11.09.2010 and 05.10.10. 2. The simple point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that since no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners within one year of the date of seizures, the goods are to be returned to the petitioners unconditionally by virtue of the provisions of section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The counter affidavits that have been filed on behalf of the respondents admit the position that no show cause notice has been issued till date which makes it clear that no show cause notice was issued within one year of the said seizures. As such, section 110(2) of the said Act would come into play. Section 110(2) specifically mandates that when 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 or within the further extended period of six months (totaling one year) of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. 4. This point has been considered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Jatin Ahuja v Union of India and Ors. WP(C) 2952/2012, decided on 04.09.2012, wherein this court observed as under:- “9. It can be gathered from the above discussion that the provision of Section 110(2) insofar as the prescription of a time limit for holding seized goods, is deemed mandatory; the consequence of not issuing a show cause notice within the period or extended period specified is clearly spelt out to be that the ‘goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized’ (apparent from a combined reading of Section 110(2) and its proviso). The corollary is not that the Customs authorities lose jurisdiction to issue show cause notice.” 5. Consequently the decision in Jatin Ahuja (supra) would apply to the present cases on all fours. 6. The corollary is not that the Customs authorities lose jurisdiction to issue show cause notice.” 5. Consequently the decision in Jatin Ahuja (supra) would apply to the present cases on all fours. 6. Mr Satish Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that there was another aspect of the matter which needed consideration. He drew our attention to paragraphs 17/18 of the counter affidavits filed in the matters. In those paragraphs the plea has been raised that the goods can only be released provided the petitioners fulfill the requirements specified in chapter IV of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Trans-boundary) Rules, 2008 and the circular No. 27/2011 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 04.07.2011 which clarifies that a permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest would be required. However, on going through the circular dated 04.07.2012, which has been issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, it is apparent from the first paragraph itself that it would apply at the stage of clearance of the goods. The exact expression used is that a clarification was sought as to whether the used computers required for re-use need permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest ‘before clearance’. The goods in the present cases had already been cleared and that, too, much prior to 04.07.2011when the said circular was issued. In fact, the goods had been seized in September/October 2010, whereas the circular was issued much later on 04.07.2012. Therefore, the said circular would not apply to the facts of the present case, the goods having been cleared much prior to the issuance of the circular. 7. Consequently, we direct that the goods in question be returned to the petitioners unconditionally. Of course it is open to the respondent to issue show cause notices to the petitioners and to proceed in accordance with law. 8. The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent.