Specific tariff classification prevails over general machine-part claims; hearing objection fails where personal hearing was actually granted.

Goods specifically described as transmission elements under sub-heading 8483.40 were held to remain classifiable there, even though they were also used as parts of a flow meter, because a specific tariff entry prevails over a more general claim and Chapter 90 Note 2(a) requires goods included in Chapter 84 headings to be classified in their own heading. The procedural objection based on denial of personal hearing also failed because the record showed that a hearing was granted and the appellants' points were recorded. The departmental classification was sustained and the challenge on procedural fairness did not succeed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods, namely Centre Shaft, Changer Gear and Gear Plate, were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8483.40 as transmission elements or under Heading 90.26 as parts and accessories of flow meters; (ii) whether denial of adequate personal hearing vitiated the adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods, namely Centre Shaft, Changer Gear and Gear Plate, were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8483.40 as transmission elements or under Heading 90.26 as parts and accessories of flow meters.

Analysis: The goods were described and accepted as transmission elements. The classification scheme required that where goods are specifically described in a tariff entry, they fall under that entry even if they may also constitute parts of another apparatus. Note 2(a) of Chapter 90 directed that parts and accessories which are goods included in headings of Chapter 84 are to be classified in their respective heading. Since transmission elements were specifically covered by sub-heading 8483.40, their use as part of a flow meter did not take them out of that heading.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8483.40, and the classification in favour of the Revenue was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of adequate personal hearing vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellate authority had granted personal hearing and the appellants' points were reiterated during that hearing. The grievance of lack of opportunity was therefore not borne out by the record.

Conclusion: No violation of the requirement of personal hearing was established.

Final Conclusion: The tariff classification adopted by the departmental authorities was sustained and the challenge based on procedural unfairness failed, so the appeal did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are specifically covered by a tariff heading, that specific classification prevails over a more general claim based on their incorporation in another machine or instrument, and a procedural objection fails when the record shows that an opportunity of hearing was in fact afforded.

---