An undecided extension request prevents rejection of project-import benefits for late-filed documents.

NBCC registered an import contract under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, for equipment imported for a thermal power plant and cleared the goods at nil duty.

Customs alleged that NBCC had not complied with Regulation 7 because it failed to submit the prescribed reconciliation statement and supporting documents within the required period.

Show-cause notices proposed recovery of duty and interest; the proposals were confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld on appeal.

NBCC appealed to the Tribunal but did not appear at the final hearing despite repeated opportunities.

The Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeals on the merits.

It noted NBCC’s request for an extension dated 11 December 2012, the absence of a recorded date for clearance of the last consignment, and that the required documents had been provided before the show-cause notices were issued.

Whether NBCC failed to comply with Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986, by not submitting the prescribed documents within the stipulated or extended period.

Whether, in the circumstances, non-compliance with Regulation 7 disentitled NBCC from the concessional or nil rate of customs duty.

Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 requires an importer to submit, within three months from clearance for home consumption of the last consignment—or within an extended period allowed by the proper officer—a statement of imported goods with supporting documents for contract finalisation.

Regulations 2, 4 and 5 concern the assessment and clearance of eligible goods under heading 98.01 against registered contracts.

The Tribunal relied on Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Rangasamy Nadar & Co. for the principle that, in appropriate circumstances, an extension request left undecided may be treated as granted where the applicant files within the period sought.

It also referred to Balaji Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE & Customs as authority for proceeding to hear and decide an appeal when a party remains absent.

The Department’s reliance on Mihir Textile Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay—that conditions attached to a concessional duty benefit must be fulfilled—was recorded as its submission.

The Tribunal found that Regulation 7’s three-month period runs from the date of clearance of the last consignment, but the record did not establish that date; it therefore held that the Department had not discharged its burden on that point.

NBCC had sought an extension, and no order rejecting that request was shown.

Applying the principle in Rangasamy Nadar, the Tribunal considered the subsequent filing of documents before issuance of the show-cause notices insufficient grounds to treat the filing as unauthorised or belated.

It also found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly considered NBCC’s referenced correspondence and documents, and had made findings inconsistent with the record concerning the extension request and reconciliation statement.

The Tribunal further held that the 2006 CBEC circular’s treatment of project-import requirements for public-sector undertakings had not been considered in the proper perspective.

It set aside the common Order-in-Appeal and allowed all three appeals.