Specific tariff classification prevails for diamond impregnated saw blades; customs and countervailing duty entries were applied accordingly.

Diamond impregnated saw blades were treated as goods specifically covered by Heading 82.01/04 of the Customs Tariff rather than by the broader machinery-parts entry in Chapter 84, because a specific tariff description prevails over a general one. For countervailing duty, gang saw blades were classified under Item 51A(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff, following the earlier ruling in the same assessee's case, and were not shifted to Heading 68. The note therefore records acceptance of the Revenue's classification position on customs duty and rejection of the assessee's claim under Heading 68 on central excise classification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the diamond impregnated saw blades were classifiable under Heading 82.01/04 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for customs duty; and (ii) whether, for countervailing duty, the goods were classifiable under Item 51A(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff or under Heading 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Issue (i): Whether the diamond impregnated saw blades were classifiable under Heading 82.01/04 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for customs duty.

Analysis: The tariff description for Heading 82.01/04 specifically covered saws and blades for hand or machine saws, including toothless saw blades. The competing heading under Chapter 84 was treated as a broader entry for parts of machine tools, while the cited tariff notes and earlier decisions supported classification of saw blades and blade bodies under Chapter 82 where the description was specific. The specific description was therefore preferred over the general machinery-part description.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 82.01/04 for customs duty, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether, for countervailing duty, the goods were classifiable under Item 51A(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff or under Heading 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the earlier decision in the respondent's own case and held that gang saw blades attracted additional duty under Item 51A(iv). On that basis, the assessee's claim for classification under Heading 68 was rejected. The record did not support shifting the goods to Heading 68 when the earlier ruling had already placed similar goods under the specific excise tariff entry.

Conclusion: For countervailing duty, the goods were classifiable under Item 51A(iv) and not under Heading 68, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The customs classification claim of Revenue succeeded, while the assessee's cross claim for classification under Heading 68 failed, resulting in the acceptance of the Revenue's appeal and rejection of the cross appeal on the central excise classification issue.

---