TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (12) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der sub-heading (2) of the same heading, as requested by the appellants. 2.  The case was heard on the 21st and 24th December, 1982. Shri K. Kumar appeared for the appellants and Shri M. Chatterjee for the Department. 3.  Shri K. Kumar's arguments in favour of the appellants' claim were three-fold : (1) The Appellate Collector had given a distorted interpretation of the suppliers' certificate and said that super finishing stones were no different from hones and, therefore, excluded from sub-heading (2). Super finishing stones were, in fact, quite different from hones. Hones were made of coarser abrasive particles having grit size upto 600 while super finishing stones were made of very fine particles of grit size 800-1200.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eign supplier and that the supplier's certificate was no substitute for catalogue and technical literature. In the Bill of Entry the appellants themselves had claimed assessment under sub-heading (1). The affidavits of their own engineer-employees could not be accepted. Finally, Shri Chatterjee produced an illustrated catalogue published M/s Delapans, a foreign manufacturer of grinding stones, which stated that graphite impregnated honing stones could be used for super finishing jobs on various types of metals. The catalogue was shown to the appellants during the hearing. 6.  We have given our earnest consideration to the matter. There is no dispute that the goods imported in this case were grinding stones. The dispute really is whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heading 68, or for that matter from the Customs Tariff, altogether and if the Department considered their super finishing stones as no different from hones, then the goods imported by them would not be liable to any duty at all and, therefore, the entire duty collected from them should be refunded, is a fresh claim made for the first time before this Tribunal. We cannot, therefore, go into this claim. If at all the appellants are serious in putting forth this claim, they should have to agitate it before the original authority who would consider it from all aspects including that of time bar for filing refund claims under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, if applicable. In any case, we find that though the appellants have raised this arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eading (1) of Heading 68.01/16. During, the hearing, we asked for the import invoice in order to know the description of the goods in the import documents. We were shown an invoice in the appellants' file which they stated was the import invoice and which described the goods as super finishing stones. We then asked the appellants to show that hones were made of particles of no more than 600 grit size while super finishing stones were made of particles 800-1200 grit size, as contended by them. They invited our attention to photostat copies of certain extracts from Kent's Hand Book on Metal Cutting Processes enclosed with their appeal. We have gone through these extracts but we find no such distinction of grit size between hones and super fin....