https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341822 The appellate tribunal upheld the impugned order, finding that the respondent had a bona fide belief in classifying the quilts under Tariff Heading No.5811 due to divergent trade practices. The tribunal noted that the Circular clarifying the correct classification was issued after the relevant period, supporting the respondent's belief. No evidence of fraud or willful misstatement was found to warrant the extended period for demand. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed legally sound, leading to the rejection of appeals and disposal of cross-objections. 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 The appellate tribunal upheld the impugned order, finding that the respondent had a bona fide belief in classifying the quilts under Tariff Heading No.5811 due to divergent trade practices. The tribunal noted that the Circular clarifying the correct classification was issued after the relevant period, supporting the respondent's belief. No evidence of fraud or willful misstatement was found to warrant the extended period for demand. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed legally sound, leading to the rejection of appeals and disposal of cross-objections. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341822