https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341822 Divergent trade practice in classifying quilts under Heading 5811 and Heading 9404 supported the assessee's bona fide belief that the goods fell under Heading 5811 and were covered by Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Because the later Board circular itself recorded that divergence and clarified the position prospectively, the ingredients for invoking the extended limitation period-fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts-were not established. The central excise demand was therefore not sustainable on limitation grounds. en-us Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Feb 2018 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341822 Divergent trade practice in classifying quilts under Heading 5811 and Heading 9404 supported the assessee's bona fide belief that the goods fell under Heading 5811 and were covered by Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Because the later Board circular itself recorded that divergence and clarified the position prospectively, the ingredients for invoking the extended limitation period-fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts-were not established. The central excise demand was therefore not sustainable on limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341822