Extended limitation under central excise law requires proof of suppression or intent to evade; mere allegations are insufficient.

The extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the Department did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The record showed multiple audits and correspondence disclosing the relevant manufacturing and duty-related particulars, and no clear, reasoned finding was recorded by the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal on the proviso's essential ingredients. Mere allegations in the show-cause notice were insufficient. The duty demand was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invocable for the duty demand raised against the assessee.

Analysis: The demand could be sustained beyond the normal limitation only if the Department established fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The assessee had been subject to multiple audits and had correspondence showing disclosure of relevant manufacturing and duty-related particulars. On the record, the authorities did not record a clear finding that the statutory prerequisites for the extended period were satisfied. Mere reference to alleged misdeclaration in the show-cause notice was insufficient when the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal did not return a reasoned finding on the essential ingredients of the proviso.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Department, and the duty demand was time-barred.

---