TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise, Jaipur -I. Respondents have also filed Cross-Objections which are also taken up for disposal. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent was manufacturing quilts which according to Department were classifiable under Tariff Heading No.9404 under the brand name of others but was not discharging duty liability on the product by classifying the same under Tariff Heading No.5811 and claiming ineligible exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. The officers of DGCEI visited the premises of the respondent and carried out search and resumed documents. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty for the period 2006 - 2007 to 2008-09 (upto December 2008) holding mis-classifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned Order-in-Appeal. It is his further submission that the letter referred to by the ld. A.R. for, in the grounds of appeal is nothing but a letter which was given to the investigating authority stating that they have classified the product under Heading 5811 and if the said classification of the product is under Heading 9404, they would do so, subject to outcome of the case and has also mentioned in the letter that if any duty is payable, they would discharge the same. He draws our attention to the CBEC's Circular dated 20.10.2009 to submit that Trade itself in doubt as to the classification of the product, no ulterior motive cannot be attributed to the assesse. It is his further submission that the show cause notice dated 30.6.2010....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been stated in the opening paragraph that the general practice as per the trade has been to classify the products under Chapter 5811 and that practice at some places has been to treat these products as classifiable under Chapter 94. Thus, it is clear that the department itself admitted that there was divergent practice to classify the textile quilts. Therefore, I find force in the said arguments advanced by the appellant and that they were under bona fide belief that their product was exempted under Notification No.30/2004 being classifiable under chapter 5811. Further, I find that in a catena of judgment of higher judicial for a i.e Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court and CESTAT wherein it has been held that where there is a bona fide d....