<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1983 (10) TMI 245 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166717</link>
    <description>Bunker supplies of excisable goods to lighterage vessels anchored beyond territorial waters did not qualify for rebate under the ship&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:01:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 245 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166717</link>
      <description>Bunker supplies of excisable goods to lighterage vessels anchored beyond territorial waters did not qualify for rebate under the ship&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>