Coastal voyage exemption for bunker fuel depends on the actual carriage between Indian ports, not later foreign departure.

Where a notification granted concessional bunker exemption for furnace oil supplied to a vessel on a coastal voyage, the vessel's status had to be determined on the facts because neither "coastal voyage" nor "vessel in the coastal run" was statutorily defined. A vessel that arrived from a foreign port in water ballast, loaded Indian cargo at Bombay for discharge at Vizag and Calcutta, and then sailed abroad was treated as engaged in carriage between Indian ports for the relevant period. Its later foreign departure did not alter the character of that voyage, and the exemption under Notification No. 5/66 was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the vessel was engaged in a coastal voyage so as to qualify for the concessional exemption for furnace oil supplied as bunker under Notification No. 5/66 dated 15th January, 1966.

Analysis: In the absence of a statutory definition of "coastal voyage" or "vessel in the coastal run", the vessel's status had to be determined from the facts. The vessel came from a foreign port in water ballast, loaded indigenous cargo at Bombay for discharge at Vizag and Calcutta, and thereafter left for a foreign port. The Tribunal found that the relevant carriage was from one Indian port to other Indian ports and that the vessel's later foreign departure did not change the character of the voyage for the period in question. The alternative reliance on the earlier Tribunal order was found inapposite on the facts, and there was no finding that the prescribed procedure under the notification had not been complied with.

Conclusion: The vessel was on a coastal voyage and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 5/66 dated 15th January, 1966; the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---