Extended limitation requires suppression or equivalent conduct; an excise-duty demand based on audited records was time-barred.

Extended limitation for an excise-duty demand cannot be invoked merely because the department later relies on records already made available during audit. The audit deficiency memo was based on the assessee's records, and their availability did not establish suppression or other conduct required to justify the extended period. The demand issued by invoking extended limitation was therefore time-barred and set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the excise-duty demand where the relevant facts and records had been made available during audit.

Analysis: The demand covered April 2011 to November 2013, while the audit had issued a deficiency memo on 10.03.2014 based on the assessee's records. The show-cause notice was issued only on 13.04.2016 by invoking the extended period. Availability of the material records to audit did not establish suppression or any conduct justifying invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; the demand raised by its invocation was time-barred and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---