1. This appeal is against the order in appeal No. 2/99 (M-III) dated 18.1.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai on the ground that the imported scraps which were packed in nine containers and shipped from Kuwait for which Bill of Entry No.54803 dated 30.10.96 was filed and CVD of Rs 1,41,265/- was paid by the importer at the Madras Customs House had to be thoroughly examined as the Customs authorities had raised objection that the containers have to be opened and examined for any arms, ammunition and explosive materials. They submitted that had this objection been raised at the fist instance itself, at the time of filing of Bill of Entry they would not have paid duty prior to such an inspection by the Explosives department as required by the Customs. They submitted that the delay has occurred because the Customs Department had approached the Bomb detection Cell and the delay by the Explosives Experts in carrying out inspection on 5.2.1997 and the subsequent grant of permission by the Customs Department to clear the goods in the fag end of April 97 were only responsible for the delay in not clearing the goods to their factory and taking Modvat credit within six months from the date of payment of duty.
2. None has appeared for the appellants despite issue of hearing notice.
3. The learned DR submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already observed that the claim filed on 1.5.97 is required to be allowed as per the provisions of limitation by accepting the plea of the appellants that date of payment should be omitted for reckoning the time limit. He pointed out that the provisions of law cannot be ignored and the statutory time limit to take credit is six months from the date of payment which they have not done. He submitted that the appeal is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed.
4. I have considered submissions. I find that the lower appellate authority has recorded a well reasoned finding in para 4 of his order which is reproduced below.
"I have carefully considered the facts of the case and all the submissions of the appellants. It is a case in which duty was paid but release of scrap were delayed for examination from the point of Explosives Act. I find that the duty was paid on 1.11.96 and the first claim was filed on 1.5.97. The Advocate has pleaded that as per the provisions of Limitation Act, the first date i.e. the date of payment could be omitted for reckoning the time limit. I agree with him. This claim may be allowed after verification. As for the other two claims, they are barred by the established time limit. In the circumstances, the argument of the appellants that the delay was on account of examination of the goods is not acceptable. Therefore, this part of the impugned order is sustainable".
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned DR, the lower appellate authority has accepted the plea of the Advocate before him that the first date of payment could be omitted for reckoning the time limit and the claim filed on 1.5.97 has been held to be in time while rejecting the other two claims which were barred by time. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.