https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775023 CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of appellant regarding customs duty demand on bunker fuel consumed by vessel MV TABA during voyage from Cochin to Alang. The tribunal held that MV TABA remained a foreign-going vessel rather than coastal vessel during the inter-port journey, making consumed goods exempt from customs duty under Section 87 of Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner erroneously relied solely on appellant's Bill of Entry filing and duty payment, ignoring that these were done on customs officers' direction to expedite vessel import process. Following precedent in Lotus Danship case, the tribunal determined no differential duty was legally payable as the vessel maintained its foreign-going character. Consequently, differential customs duty demand of Rs. 96,136 with interest was set aside, and penalty under Section 114A was also quashed, finding no intention to evade duty. Appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 10:18:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775023 CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of appellant regarding customs duty demand on bunker fuel consumed by vessel MV TABA during voyage from Cochin to Alang. The tribunal held that MV TABA remained a foreign-going vessel rather than coastal vessel during the inter-port journey, making consumed goods exempt from customs duty under Section 87 of Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner erroneously relied solely on appellant's Bill of Entry filing and duty payment, ignoring that these were done on customs officers' direction to expedite vessel import process. Following precedent in Lotus Danship case, the tribunal determined no differential duty was legally payable as the vessel maintained its foreign-going character. Consequently, differential customs duty demand of Rs. 96,136 with interest was set aside, and penalty under Section 114A was also quashed, finding no intention to evade duty. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775023