Specific tariff coverage supports full CVD exemption for ophthalmic rough blanks despite a separate concessional notification.

Ophthalmic rough blanks and flint buttons classified under sub-heading 7015.10 were treated as covered by the tariff description for corrective spectacles, including the specific sub-items for rough blanks and flint buttons. On that basis, S. No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2006-C.E. was held to grant full CVD exemption, and the existence of a separate concessional notification did not defeat the specific exemption claim. The later deletion of the concessional entry was also relied on as supporting coverage of rough blanks under the full exemption entry.

---

---

Issues: Whether ophthalmic rough blanks and flint buttons falling under sub-heading 7015.10 were entitled to full exemption from CVD under S. No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2006-C.E. despite the view that only finished goods were covered.

Analysis: The tariff description of 7015.10 expressly covered "glasses for corrective spectacles", and the sub-items 7015.10.10 and 7015.10.20 specifically included ophthalmic rough blanks and flint buttons. Once the goods were brought within that tariff entry, S. No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2006-C.E. squarely applied. The availability of another concessional notification did not prevent the assessee from claiming the full exemption specifically available under the notification invoked. The subsequent deletion of the concessional entry in Notification No. 5/2006 also supported the view that rough blanks were intended to be covered by the full exemption entry.

Conclusion: The goods were eligible for exemption under S. No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2006-C.E., and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order denying exemption was set aside, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry and the exemption notification specifically cover the imported goods, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of that specific exemption, and the existence of a separate concessional notification does not defeat the claim.

---