Specific tariff description prevails for LCD panels, making Heading 9013 classification and related exemption treatment applicable.

Liquid crystal display panels and their parts are treated as a specific tariff entry under Heading 9013 rather than as parts of apparatus under Heading 8529. Applying the rule that a specific description prevails over a general or residual one, and reading the chapter notes so that exclusions for Chapter 90 goods remain effective, the classification under Heading 9013 controls. On that basis, exemption denial linked to the alternative Heading 8529 classification is not sustainable; the exemption consequence follows the classification under Heading 9013.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether LCD panels and parts of LCD panels are classifiable under Heading 9013 or under Heading 8529 of the Customs Tariff; (ii) Whether the denial of exemption benefit based on the alternative classification under Heading 8529 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether LCD panels and parts of LCD panels are classifiable under Heading 9013 or under Heading 8529 of the Customs Tariff.

Analysis: The tariff scheme treated Liquid Crystal Devices as a specific entry under Heading 9013, while Heading 8529 covered parts suitable for use solely or principally with apparatus of Headings 8525 to 8528. Applying Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation, the more specific description had to prevail over a general or residual description. Section Note 1(m) of Section XVI excluded articles of Chapter 90 from Section XVI, and Note 2(a) could not displace that exclusion where the goods themselves answered the specific description in Heading 9013. The reasoning adopted in earlier decisions on LCD panels and LCD devices was followed.

Conclusion: LCD panels are classifiable under Tariff Item 9013 8010 and parts of LCD panels are classifiable under Tariff Item 9013 9010, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the denial of exemption benefit based on the alternative classification under Heading 8529 was sustainable.

Analysis: The exemption dispute depended entirely on the classification adopted for the goods. Once the goods were held to fall under Heading 9013 and not Heading 8529, the basis for denying the exemption under the amended notification disappeared.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption benefit was unsustainable and liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders could not be sustained and were set aside, with the appeals allowed and consequential relief following from the classification under Heading 9013.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods answer a specific tariff description, that classification prevails over a broader or residual heading, and exclusionary chapter notes cannot override the specific heading that directly covers the goods.

---