A. P. MISRA. J. ( 1 ) WE have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Singh, learned Senior standing Counsel. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are disposing of this writ petition finally. ( 2 ) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2nd July, 1991 passed by the Customs, excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, annexed as Annexure-4 to the present writ petition. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, decided the matter and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,42,918-47p, under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt act, 1944, vide his order dated 16. 7. 1990. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said orders, filed an appeal on 17th October, 1990 and subsequently a waiver and stay applications dated 8th january, 1991. The appeal was preferred under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 2nd July, 1991 partly waived the amount in question directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the demand of duty within eight weeks of the receipt of the Tribunals order. The petitioner, still aggrieved against the same has filed the present writ petition, seeking total waiver of the amount in question. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has averred and stated that it has specifically mentioned in the stay application and the waiver application moved before the Appellate Tribunal, and also raised the question that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was not maintainable as the Assistant collector was not competent to issue the same under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and salt Act, 1944, when extended period of limitation had been invoked. The contention of the petitioner is that it is only the Collector and not the Additional Collector, who is empowered to issue such a notice and the impugned show cause notice was barred by time. ( 4 ) WE have considered the decision given by the Appellate Tribunal carefully. Normally, we would not have interfered with the impugned order, since the Tribunal has dealt with the question exhaustively. ( 4 ) WE have considered the decision given by the Appellate Tribunal carefully. Normally, we would not have interfered with the impugned order, since the Tribunal has dealt with the question exhaustively. However, the petitioner had raised the question of limitation, specifically in the ground of appeal also, apart from referring it in the stay application as well as the waiver application moved before the Tribunal and the petitioner also averred in the present writ petition that the question regarding limitation was raised even before the Tribunal but the same has not been dealt with, we fine that the decision of this Court reported in 1987 (31) Excise Law Times, 883, Allahabad, in the case of Luxco Electronics v. Union of India and Ors. , cited by the Learned counsel for the petitioner, is applicable, to the facts of the present case. In that case, stay was granted by the Tribunal subject to the partial cash deposit and furnishing bank guarantee for the balance amount. There also the plea of demand being time-barred was raised but was not considered by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was quashed with the direction to decide the application afresh. The said decision also took note of the decision of this Court in the case of Hari Fertilizers Limited v. Union of India 1985 (22) Excise Law Times 301. The court in that case directed that the Tribunal was to deal with the plea about the demand being time-barred though in a prima facie manner in its order on application made by the appellant before it for stay of the realisation of the amount under challenge. ( 5 ) IN view of the above discussion, we set aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 2nd July, 1991, Annexure-4 to the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the point regarding the show cause notice being time-barred in a prima facie manner and to dispose of the application of waiver as well as the stay application in accordance with law. The petitioner will file a certified copy of this order before the Tribunal within two weeks from to-day. ( 6 ) THE petition succeeds and is allowed in part accordingly. ( 7 ) A certified copy of this order may be issued to the petitioners counsel on payment of usual charges if possible within 24 hours. .