M/S. Triveni Rubber And Plastics vs Collector Of Central Excise, Cochin on 30 March, 1993
4.4 Mr. Prabhat Kumar, the Ld. SDR, while supporting the order, has submitted that the way the wire in coils were packed and distinctly marked with tag attached to each of them indicating all the details, when read with the test report from the Customs House chemical laboratory, duly indicates that the wire in coils were new and unused and the mode and manner in which they were concealed, gave due proof of the attempt at importing them under the cover of scrap. It is also his submission that the scrap is declared to be of Singapore origin whereas the coils bear marking of Chinese origin. He has submitted that the coils are not the scrap, is even admitted by the Director of the appellant firm in his statement before the SIB, and there has been no retraction in that regard. The Ld. SDR has referred to the Tribunal decision in Punam Plastics v. Collector - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 634. He has further pleaded that even the report of the special officer appointed by the High Court also corroborates the stand of the department, and his observation that the coils were old and had no shining is without any basis and gets contradicted by the photographs taken at his own initiation. The Ld. Advocate has further pleaded that the appellants have not agreed to any test by any expert either at the stage when it was so directed by the Calcutta High Court (Single Judge Order) or when the suggestion was made by the adjudicating authority. These circumstances, in the submission of the Ld. SDR, indicate the approach of the appellants. In his submission, there is no evidence to show that the subject coils were taken as scrap, as burden to prove the same lay on the importers.