Plain meaning in tax notifications preserves foreign-going vessel exemptions despite temporary port calls on the voyage.

Under taxing notifications, undefined expressions must be read in their plain and natural sense, and later customs definitions cannot control earlier excise exemptions. The Court treated the demand notices denying rebate and partial exemption as unsustainable because they relied on an extraneous customs definition instead of the notification language. It also held that a vessel bound for a foreign port, or an ocean-going vessel on foreign run, remains within those expressions even if it briefly touches Indian ports under permission for cargo discharge and limited coastal activity. The rebate and exemption therefore applied, and the relief granted to the assessee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand notices denying rebate of excise duty and partial exemption of additional duty, on the footing that the vessels were not foreign-going vessels, were legally sustainable; (ii) Whether the expressions "vessel bound for any foreign port" and "ocean going vessel on foreign run" in the relevant notifications included vessels which, though proceeding to a foreign port, touched Indian ports under permission for discharge of cargo.

Issue (i): Whether the demand notices denying rebate of excise duty and partial exemption of additional duty, on the footing that the vessels were not foreign-going vessels, were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The notifications granting rebate and exemption were issued under the Central Excise regime and the Mineral Products Act. The denial of benefit was founded on the definition in section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court held that excise duty and customs duty are different in nature, scope, and object, and the two enactments are not cognate or in pari materia. The later Customs Act could not be used to control the meaning of expressions used earlier in the excise notifications. The impugned notices were therefore based on an extraneous consideration.

Conclusion: The demand notices were unsustainable and liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the expressions "vessel bound for any foreign port" and "ocean going vessel on foreign run" in the relevant notifications included vessels which, though proceeding to a foreign port, touched Indian ports under permission for discharge of cargo.

Analysis: The expressions were not defined in the statute or the notifications, so they had to be given their plain and natural meaning. In a taxing provision, there is no scope for intendment, and in case of ambiguity the construction beneficial to the taxpayer must be preferred. On that approach, a vessel bound for a foreign port means a vessel going or intending to go to a foreign port, and a vessel on foreign run means a vessel on a regular course or route to a foreign port. A vessel does not lose that character merely because, under special permission, it touches Indian ports on the way and engages in limited coastal trade. Temporary coastal activity does not convert it into a country vessel or destroy its foreign-going character.

Conclusion: The expressions covered the vessels in question, and the rebate or exemption could not be denied, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the judgment granting relief to the petitioners was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxing notifications, undefined expressions must receive their plain and natural meaning, and a vessel does not cease to be bound for a foreign port or on foreign run merely because it briefly touches Indian ports under permission during the voyage.

---