ORDER 1. Shri A.M. Mathur with Shri S.K. Garg for the petitioner heard an admission. 2. After hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the case can be disposed of without notice to the other side, only by making certain directions. The impugned orders of the CEGAT are Annexure P 3 Stay Order No. 03 and 04/93-C, dated 28-12-1992 and Order No. 38 & 39/93-C dated 9-2-1993. The Order No. 03-04/93-C rejects the application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, in which the prayer for exemption from pre-deposit of the amount involved in the appeal was made. As this order was passed in the absence of the appellant-petitioner, another application was made on which Order No. 38 & 39/93-C (Annexure P 4) was passed. 3. Shri Mathur submits that after the exemption was granted under Section 35F for the period 28-2-1986 to 6-12-1990, the rest of the claim is barred by limitation as the show cause notice itself has been given beyond the period of six months without alleging any fraud etc. Shri Mathur pointed out that in Para 3 of the order (Annexure P 4) the CEGAT has noted this point as having been argued by the counsel for the appellant. Even if it had not been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, according to Shri Mathur it was the plainest duty of the Tribunal to take note of the question of limitation if it is patent on the face of record. We do not find that the point about the show cause notice itself being beyond limitation was considered by the CEGAT. 4. However, the matter is still at interim stage and only an application under Section 35F of the Act has been decided and the case is posted, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, now on 25-3-1993. We would not issue notice to the other side and let the case linger on in this Court. It would be just and proper to direct the CEGAT to hear the matter regarding exemption from the condition of pre-deposit again only from the angle as to whether it would affect the prima facie case in favour of the appellant one way or the other because of the plea that the show cause notices themselves were beyond limitation. It would be just and proper to direct the CEGAT to hear the matter regarding exemption from the condition of pre-deposit again only from the angle as to whether it would affect the prima facie case in favour of the appellant one way or the other because of the plea that the show cause notices themselves were beyond limitation. The matter is fixed before the CEGAT on 25-3-1993 according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. We, therefore, direct that the CEGAT shall again give a hearing to the petitioner only on the aforesaid point of the show cause notice being beyond limitation and pass an appropriate order on the application under Section 35F of the Act. A certified copy of the order shall be produced by the petitioner before the CEGAT on 25-3-1993. The Tribunal shall be free to hear the matter on the same day or on such day as it deems fit but before proceeding to decide the appeal on merits, the Tribunal shall again dispose of the application under Section 35F of the Act in the light of the objection as to the show cause notice itself being beyond limitation. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. A certified copy of the order be given today on payment of usual charges.