JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by the Collector of Central Excise is directed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'] dated May 15, 1992. 2. The Rajasthan Textile Mills Kota, respondent herein, was manufacturer of single ply yarn which was converted into double yarn. Prior to February 28, 1982 single ply yarn issued for doubling was accounted for only after doubling and excise duty was charged at the doubled yarn stage under Tariff Item No. 18 (III) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff @ Rs. 18 per kg. From February 28, 1982 the excise duty was reduced to Rs. 9/- per kg. The respondent paid duty on the doubled yarn cleared after February 27, 1982 @ Rs. 9/- per kg. On February 7, 1986 a show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise wherein it was mentioned that there was short payment of excise duty by the respondent to the extent of Rs. 6,02,159.60 p. in respect of the duty chargeable on single ply yarn removed for doubling purpose prior to February 28, 1982 in respect of closing stock of 52,992.7 kgs. of double yarn in packed condition on February 27, 1982. It was stated in the said show cause notice that excise duty was payable @ Rs. 18/- per kg. on the said quantity of single ply yarn because the single ply yarn was in a fully manufactured condition and excise duty was payable before the removal of single ply yarn for doubling purposes. The respondent was required to show cause why the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,02,159.60 p. should not be recovered. In the said show cause notice it was not stated that the short payment of duty was by reason of fraud collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty by the respondent. In its reply dated February 14, 1983 to the said show cause notice the respondent submitted that the excise duty had been paid correctly at the stage when the goods were removed for sale and that there was no short payment of excise duty by the respondent. In its reply dated February 14, 1983 to the said show cause notice the respondent submitted that the excise duty had been paid correctly at the stage when the goods were removed for sale and that there was no short payment of excise duty by the respondent. An objection to the raising of demand of the duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was also raised on the ground that the removal of the goods by the respondent could by no stretch of imagination be termed as an act by reason of fraud etc. or contravention of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or Rules with an intention to evade payment of duty. It was submitted that the respondent had filed classification lists from time to time for production of the goods in question and also other relevant returns required under the law with full description of the goods in question without any suppression of facts. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated March 1, 1985, accepted the contention of the respondent that there was no short payment of excise duty and dropped the demand raised in the show cause notice. Since the Assistant Collector had found in favour of the respondent on merits he did not deal with the submission regarding bar of limitation raised by the respondent in the reply to the show cause notice. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the said order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Since the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was agreeing with the view of the Assistant Collector, he also did not consider it necessary to examine the plea of limitation raised by the respondent in the reply to show cause notice. The matter was thereafter taken to the Tribunal where there was a difference of opinion between two learned members and the matter was referred to a third member. The appeal was dismissed by the third Member. One of the two members of the Tribunal (Shri K.S. Venkataramani) who had heard the appeal initially, has, however, referred to the question of limitation and has stated that it had not been raised before the lower authorities and that there was no material on record including the copy of the show cause notice to consider the issue at this stage. The other two learned members of the Tribunal have not adverted to this question. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant because, as pointed out by Shri Ravinder Narain, the learned counsel for the respondent, the show cause notice dated February 7, 1983, issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise does not indicate that the conditions required for invoking the extended period of limitation envisaged by Section 11A were present in this case. The show cause notice has been filed as Annexure I to the Petition of Appeal. In the said show cause notice also there is stated that there has been short payment of duty. There is nothing in the show cause notice which may indicate that any of the grounds which could justify invoking the extended period of limitation for initiating the proceedings under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was present. In the reply to the show cause notice the respondent had specifically raised the plea that there was no ground for invoking the extended period of limitation. The Assistant Collector as well as by the Collector (Appeals) did not consider it necessary to deal with this aspect because on mertis they found that there was no short payment of duty. But that does not mean that the respondent did not raise the plea of limitation before the excise authorities. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the observations of one of the members of the Tribunal that the matter of limitation had not been raised before the lower authorities. 4. We have already mentioned that there was nothing in the show cause notice dated February 7, 1983 to indicate that the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for invoking the extended period of limitation were present. In the circumstances, it must be held that the proceedings initiated against the respondent on the basis of the show cause notice dated February 19, 1983 relating to payment of duty on single yarn manufacturing prior to February 28, 1992 was barred by limitation and were rightly dropped. On that view it is not necessary to go into other questions raised in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No orders as to costs.