https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93206 The court directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount within a month, waiving the remaining duty and penalty, and staying their recovery. Despite the classification and limitation issues raised, the applicant's past declarations under a different heading and lack of evidence of intentional misrepresentation supported this outcome. The judgment emphasized the need for evidence regarding the use of goods to determine if the factory qualified as a laboratory under the relevant tariff headings. Compliance with the deposit directive was required by a specified date. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2011 10:52:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93206 The court directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount within a month, waiving the remaining duty and penalty, and staying their recovery. Despite the classification and limitation issues raised, the applicant's past declarations under a different heading and lack of evidence of intentional misrepresentation supported this outcome. The judgment emphasized the need for evidence regarding the use of goods to determine if the factory qualified as a laboratory under the relevant tariff headings. Compliance with the deposit directive was required by a specified date. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93206