Rebate on ship's stores denied where bunker supplies to vessels beyond territorial waters were neither export nor coastal voyage.

Bunker supplies of excisable goods to lighterage vessels anchored beyond territorial waters did not qualify for rebate under the ship's stores notifications. The rebate provisions applied only to goods consumed on board a vessel bound for a foreign port, or to goods exported to a country or territory outside India; the open sea beyond territorial waters was neither a foreign port nor a territory outside India. The alternative argument that the movement was a coastal voyage also failed because the vessel merely departed from and returned to the same port, rather than plying between two coastal ports. Rebate was therefore inadmissible and concessional duty relief was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether bunker supplies of excisable goods to lighterage vessels, operating from a super tanker anchored beyond the territorial waters and carrying cargo to an Indian port, qualified for rebate under the relevant excise notifications as supplies for consumption on board a vessel bound for a foreign port or for export to a territory outside India, and whether the voyage could alternatively be treated as a coastal voyage.

Analysis: The rebate claim had to be tested under the excise notifications governing export of excisable goods as ship's stores, not by reference to customs law concepts. The notification of 1949 allowed rebate only for ship's stores consumed on board a vessel bound for a foreign port, while Notification No. 197/62 allowed rebate only where the goods were exported out of India to any country or territory outside India. A place in the open sea beyond territorial waters was neither a foreign port nor a territory outside India. The expression "territory" was understood as relating to a land mass, and the area beyond territorial waters could not be treated as such a territory. The alternative plea of a coastal voyage also failed because the lighterage vessel merely went out from and returned to the same port, and did not ply between two coastal ports.

Conclusion: The rebate was not admissible and the claim for concessional duty failed.

---