JUDGMENT P.V. Dixit, J. The Appellant State in this case was the Defendant in an action brought by the Respondents to recover Rs. 8,526-3-3 together with interest and costs. The learned Additional Civil Judge, First Class, Indore, who tried the suit, gave judgment for the Plaintiffs for an amount of Rs. 8,526-3-0 besides costs. The case of the Plaintiffs is that they are dealers in cloth doing business in Indore; that the Government of the former Holkar State by notifications Nos. 19 and 20 dated 27th June 1936 established a bonded warehouse in a portion of Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market, Indore, wherein licensed cloth dealers could deposit cloth imported into Holkar State without payment of customs duty; that they kept a shop in the bonded warehouse and had stocked therein cloth free from any import duty until 14th August 1948; that on this date the Rajpramukh of Madhya Bharat promulgated an Ordinance abolishing all free customs zones in Madhya Bharat and charging on all commodities in stock in free zones on 14th August 1948 a special duty equivalent to the customs duty to which the commodities would have been liable for their import into the covenanting State concerned; that consequently a sum of Rs. 8,526-3-3 was recovered from them by way of customs duty on account of cloth held in stock by them in the warehouse on 14th August 1948. 8,526-3-3 was recovered from them by way of customs duty on account of cloth held in stock by them in the warehouse on 14th August 1948. The Plaintiffs further averred that after the promulgation of the Ordinance representations were made by various merchants and dealers to Madhya Bharat Government and as a result thereof the Madhya Bharat Government appointed a committee with Shri Mishrilal Gangwal as its President to investigate into the question of the levy of customs duty on commodities stocked in free zones on 14th August 1948; that the report submitted by the committee was considered by the Madhya Bharat Government and on its basis the Madhya Bharat Government issued a notification on 23rd July 1949 declaring that no customs duty would be levied on stock of goods lying in customs free zones on 14th August 1948; that the report submitted by the committee was considered by the Madhya Bharat Government and on its basis the Madhya Bharat Government issued a notification on 23rd July 1949 declaring that no customs duty would be levied on stock of goods lying in customs free zones on 14th August 1948 and that the customs duty already realised on these commodities would be refunded to the merchants on their applying to the Superintendent of Customs and Excise having jurisdiction for the area concerned. After the issue of this notification the Plaintiffs applied to the Superintendent of Customs and Excise, Indore, for a refund of Rs. 8,526-3-3 realised from them by way of customs duty on the stock of cloth lying in their shop in the bonded warehouse on 14th August 1948. But the Superintendent of Customs and Excise, Indore, refused to refund the amount on the ground that the notification in question applied to stocks in customs free zones and that the bonded warehouse was not a free zone. Thereupon the Plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for the recovery of Rs. 8,526-3-3. The Defendant State resisted the suit mainly on the ground that the bonded warehouse was not abolished by Ordinance No. 8 of 1948 and was not covered by the notification issued by the Madhya Bharat Government on 23rd July 1949. Thereupon the Plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for the recovery of Rs. 8,526-3-3. The Defendant State resisted the suit mainly on the ground that the bonded warehouse was not abolished by Ordinance No. 8 of 1948 and was not covered by the notification issued by the Madhya Bharat Government on 23rd July 1949. It was also pleaded that the demand for the refund of the customs duty was made nearly after a year of its recovery and that during all this time the Plaintiffs had sold the cloth stocked in bonded warehouse and realised from the purchasers customs duty paid by them to the Government and that, therefore, they were not entitled to make any demand for payment of the customs duty from the Government. The learned trial Judge held that the Plaintiffs' suit was within time; that it was cognizable by the civil Court; that the bonded warehouse was a customs free zone which was abolished by the Ordinance issued by the Rajpramukh of Madhya Bharat on 14th August 1948; and that the notification issued by the Madhya Bharat Government on 23rd July 1949 exempting from customs duty goods held in stock-in free zones on 14th August 1948 and directing the refund of the duty already realised applied to cloth held in stock in the bonded warehouse. He further held that there was nothing in the notification on 23rd July 1940 to disentitle any cloth dealer who had recovered the amount of customs duty from the purchasers by including it in the price of cloth sold or otherwise, from making a demand for the refund of the amount of duty paid by them to the Government. On these findings the Plaintiffs' suit was decreed. On the arguments addressed before us, the real matter which arises for consideration in this appeal is about the meaning and effect of certain provisions of the Indore Customs Act, 1927, the Madhya Bharat Customs Regulation Ordinance, 1948 (Ordinance No. 8 of 1948), the Madhya Bharat Customs Regulation Act, 1949 (Act No. 16 of 1949) which repealed and replaced Ordinance No. 8 of 1948 and of the Notifications Nos. 19 and 20 of the former Holkar State (Ex. P-1) and the notification issued by the Madhya Bharat Government on 23rd July 1949 (Ex. P-3). 19 and 20 of the former Holkar State (Ex. P-1) and the notification issued by the Madhya Bharat Government on 23rd July 1949 (Ex. P-3). Before stating the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of the above Act, Ordinance and notifications. The Indore Customs Act was enacted by the Government of His Highness the Maharaja Holkar in 1927. It was an Act consolidating and amending the law relating to the levy of customs duty in Holkar State and containing inter alia provisions for appointment of officers and of appointment of customs post and warehouses, prohibition and restriction of importation and exportation, levy of and exemption from customs duties, valuation etc. Section 10 of the Act empowered the Customs Commissioner to appoint public warehouses wherein dutiable goods could be deposited without payment of duty on the first importation thereof. Sections 23 and 24, which have been relied upon by the Respondents, dealt with exemption of goods from customs duties. These sections run as follows-- Section 23: The Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Holkar Sirkar Gazette, exempt any goods or classes of goods imported into, or exported from, the Holkar State, or into, or from any specified area therein, from the whole or any part of the customs duties leviable on such goods. Explanation: Such exemptions may extend or be confined to goods produced in, or imported from or exported to particular areas, specified by the Government within or without the Holkar State. Section 24: The Government may by special order in each case, exempt from the payment of duty, under special circumstances, any goods on which Customs duties are leviable. The bonded warehouse in Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market was, however, not established under Section 10 of the Indore Customs Act. It was established under a special order of H.H. the Maharaja Holkar which formed the subject-matter of Notification No. 19 issued on 27th June 1936. Paragraph-1 of this notification stated that "a bonded warehouse may be established in the area known as 'Coach house' a portion of Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market and it may be declared as a customs free zone area." The rules regarding the bonded warehouse which were sanctioned by the Holkar State Government were published by Notification No. 20 of 27th June 1936. According to these rules, licence-holders could deposit cloth in the bonded warehouse without payment of duty on the first importation thereof. The goods deposited were, however, not absolutely immune from payment of any duty. Under Rule 14, the cloth deposited in the warehouse could not be sold at the warehouse or removed therefrom except on payment of the duty mentioned in that rule. Coming to Ordinance No. 8 of 1918, it was promulgated some three months after the formation of Madhya Bharat. Its object was to remove customs barriers between the territories of covenanting States of Madhya Bharat and to abolish forthwith duty on transport of goods within the territories of Madhya Bharat State and to prescribe a uniform duty on goods imported into and exported from Madhya Bharat. The Ordinance also abolished duty-free zones existing in the covenanting States. On the commodities held in stock in free zones abolished by the Ordinance, a duty "equal to that which would have been charged for their import from the duty-free zone to the State of which it formed a part prior to the merger of that State in Madhya Bharat immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance" was levied. The Ordinance continued rules and regulations of the covenanting States relating to import and export, challan, Rahadari and Wapsi subject to the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Ordinance. The Customs Regulation Act, which came into force on 12th February 1949 and which repealed and replaced the Ordinance was substantially in the same terms as the Ordinance. Sections 5 and 6 of the Act were as follows: Section 5: All the duty-free zones of the United State which have ceased to be duty-free zones under the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Customs Regulation Ordinance, Samvat 2005, and all concessions regarding exemptions from customs duty therein and all concessions regarding exemptions from or reductions of customs duty in repeet of Hats, which have likewise terminated shall continue to have ceased and terminated. Section 6: On such commodities in stock at present in the duty-free zones, on which import duty would have been charged in case those areas would not have been duty-free zones, a special duty, equal to that which would have been charged for their import from the duly-free zones to the State of which it formed a part prior to the merger of that State in the United State, immediately before the commencement of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Customs Regulation Ordinance, Samvat 2005, in case it would not have come into force, shall be charged, whether they are exported therefrom or not. Section 7(1) laid down: Subject to the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 all provisions regarding imports, exports, challan, Rahadari and Wapsi contained in the prevalent laws, rules, regulations or Orders of the covenanting States, unless repealed or modified, shall continue to remain in force and be followed in the respective territories. Section 9 of the Act provided: The Government may exempt any commodity from import or export duty, levy import or export duty on which no import or export duty has been levied.... The notification which was issued by the Madhya Bharat Government on 23rd July 1949 after referring to the abolition of free-zones on 14th August 1948 and the leavy of a duty on commodities stocked in free-zones on that date, and after narrating the circumstances leading to the appointment of a committee to enquire into "free zones", proceeded to say that on a consideration of the report submitted by the committee the Government was pleased to direct that no customs duty would be levied on goods lying in customs free-zones on 14th August 1948 and that the customs duty already realised on such stock would be refunded to the merchants concerned on their applying for a refund to the Superintendent of Customs and Excise of the area having the jurisdiction. On behalf of the Appellant State, learned Government Advocate argued that the bonded warehouse in Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market was not a free zone and was not abolished by Ordinance No. 8 of 1918 and consequently the Plaintiffs could not get the benefit of the concession of exemption or refund notified on 23rd July 1949. On behalf of the Appellant State, learned Government Advocate argued that the bonded warehouse in Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market was not a free zone and was not abolished by Ordinance No. 8 of 1918 and consequently the Plaintiffs could not get the benefit of the concession of exemption or refund notified on 23rd July 1949. It was said that the bonded warehouse was not a free zone inasmuch as the cloth stocked therein could not be sold or removed without payment of the duty, specified in Rule 14 of the Rules notified on 27th June 1936, and that, therefore, the concession of exemption from duty or refund of it, could not be availed of by stockists of cloth in the bonded warehouse. It was also contended that a duty having been expressly levied by Section 6 of the Ordinance and Section 6 of Act No. 16 of 1949 on commodities including cloth existing in free zones on 14th August 1948, Government had no power to exempt by a notification the cloth dealers from payment of any duty or direct the refund of duty realised on account of the stocks of cloth on the abolition of the bonded warehouse; and that the Government had no such power under Section 9 of Act No. 16 of 1949 or under Section 23 and Section 24 of the Indore Customs Act, 1927, even assuming that Sections 23 and 24 continued to be operative even after the promulgation of the Ordinance and the enactment of the Madhya Bharat Customs Regulation Act, 1949. It was urged that Sections 23 and 24 of the Indore Customs Act, 1927 were not "provisions regarding imports, exports, challan, Rahadari and Wapsi", and, therefore, they could not be said to have been continued under Section 7(1) of the Ordinance; and that even if they were treated as continued, their continuance being subject to the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Ordinance and to the corresponding provisions of the Act, the power to exempt could not be exercised so as to nullify the duty charged under Section 6 of the Ordinance or Section 6 of the Act. The argument put forward by Mr. The argument put forward by Mr. Chitale on behalf of the Respondents was that the abolition of free zones by the Ordinance and Act No. 16 of 1949 did not in any way affect the power of the Government to exempt--which also included the power to direct a refund of duty already collected--under Sections 23 and 24 of the Indore Customs Act, 1927, goods made dutiable under Section 6 of the Ordinance and Section 6 of the Act; that Section 9 of the Act did not impliedly repeal Sections 23 and 24 of the Indore Customs Act; that while Section 9 was a general provision dealing with the power of the Government to exempt any commodity from import and export duty it also dealt with other matters; that Sections 23 and 24 were special provisions concerning exemptions from duty of any goods or class of goods; that Sections 23 and 24 continued to remain in force by virtue of Section 7(1) of Act No. 16 of 1949; and that, though their continuance was made subject to Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Act, that did not preclude the Government from exempting from duty goods stocked in free zones on 14th August 1948 as all that Sections 5 and 6 did was to abolish free zones and make liable to duty commodities existing therein on 14th August 1948. According to learned Counsel, the notification issued on 23rd July 1949 could not be taken as one issued under Section 9 of the Act, as Section 9 spoke of exemption with reference to commodities, whereas the notification in question granted exemption with reference to the place or location of the goods. It was said that the notification was issued under Sections 23 and 24 of the Indore Customs Act, and that when that notification was read with the notification establishing a bonded warehouse in Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market, Indore, it was amply clear that the cloth held in stock in bonded warehouse in Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market was not excluded from the benefit granted under the notification of 23rd July 1949. In my opinion, the appeal must succeed. The first question to consider is whether the exemption granted by the notification issued on 23rd July 1949 applied to cloth held in stock on 14th August 1948 in the bonded warehouse in Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market, Indore. In my opinion, the appeal must succeed. The first question to consider is whether the exemption granted by the notification issued on 23rd July 1949 applied to cloth held in stock on 14th August 1948 in the bonded warehouse in Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market, Indore. The orders of the Government contained in the notification about the exemption from duty and the refund thereof were prefaced by statements as to the circumstances leading to the making of the direction contained in the notification and their object. The notification set out that by Ordinance No. 8 of 1948 customs-free zones were abolished and duty according to the prevailing tariff rate was charged on goods in stock in those zones on 14th August 1948; and that on representations being made by various merchants to the Government against this action, the Government had appointed a committee to enquire into the matter and on a consideration of the report of the committee and all the circumstances the Government, thinking it proper to discontinue the existence of free zones, had decided to pass certain order. Then followed the direction with regard to exemption from duty and refund. The purport of the direction contained in the notification is thus plain. It is to exempt from duty those commodities which were held in stock on 14th August 1948 in customs-free zones abolished by the Ordinance and on which a duty under Section 6 of the Ordinance was charged. The question then arises, whether the bonded warehouse was customs-free zone abolished under the Ordinance. Section 5 of the Ordinance and Section 5 of the Act (No. 16 of 1949) spoke of the abolition of all duty-free zones" in Madhya Bharat without any words qualifying the expression "all duty-free zones". Neither the Act nor the Ordinance gave any definition of the expression "duty-free zone". In the absence of any such qualification or definition of the expression "all duty-free zones", it would not be correct to read that expression in a limited sense to mean only those areas where no duty of any kind was levied on any commodity. The expression "all duty-free zones" must be taken to mean duty-free zones of every kind wherein exemption from duty is absolute or partial, whether in relation to duties or commodities, or in relation to transactions concerning the commodities. The expression "all duty-free zones" must be taken to mean duty-free zones of every kind wherein exemption from duty is absolute or partial, whether in relation to duties or commodities, or in relation to transactions concerning the commodities. Now Notification No. 19 of 27th June 1936 establishing a bonded warehouse in Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market itself declared it as a customs-free zone area. Under Notification No. 20 of 27th June 1936, cloth could be imported and stocked in bonded warehouse without payment of duty on the first importation thereof and the cloth could not be sold at the warehouse or removed therefrom except on payment of duty mentioned in Rule 14. It was thus a free zone so far as duty on cloth imported and stocked therein was concerned. The sale of cloth in the warehouse or its removal therefrom was no doubt on payment of duty. That made it a free zone of a limited character but nonetheless it was a duty-free zone for the purpose of Section 5 of the Ordinance and Section 5 of Act No. 16 of 1949. The bonded warehouse was thus a customs-free zone abolished under the Ordinance and the cloth in stock there on 14th August 1948 was one on which duty was charged under the Ordinance. The argument of the learned Government Advocate that as the bonded warehouse was not a free zone, the notification issued on 23rd July 1949 did not apply to cloth stocked in the warehouse in question must, therefore, be rejected. Indeed if the bonded warehouse was not abolished under the Ordinance, then it is inexplicable how it was abolished and how a duty on the cloth stocked therein was charged. It is worthy of note that the customs authorities themselves regarded it as a free zone abolished under the Ordinance, and charged duty on the cloth lying therein on 14th August 1948 under Section 6 of the Ordinance. The Appellant State is, in my view, on a strong ground in its contention that the Government could not by issuing a notification exempt from duty commodities on which duty was charged under Section 6 of the Ordinance or Section 6 of the Act. The notification issued on 23rd July 1949 gives no indication whatever of the provision of law under which it was issued. The notification issued on 23rd July 1949 gives no indication whatever of the provision of law under which it was issued. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents did not take it as falling under Section 9 of Act No. 16 of 1949. According to him it was issued under Sections 23 and 24 of the Indore Customs Act, 1927, which continued to be operative after the promulgation of the Ordinance. I find myself unable to accept this argument. The reason is that under Section 7(1) of the Ordinance and the corresponding provisions of Act No. 16 of 1949 "provisions regarding import, export, Challan, Rahadari, Wapsi" only were continued subject to the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Ordinance and the Act. In my opinion, "provisions regarding import, export, Challan, Rahadari, Wapsi" mean procedural provisions concerning the act of export, import, Rahadari, Wapsi etc. They do not include provisions about the levy of duty or exemption from duty. This view is clearly borne out when one considers the details of Section 4 of the Ordinance and Section 4 of the Act and of the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Indore Customs Act, 1927. Sections 23 and 24 deal with exemption from that duty which was leviable under the Indore Customs Act. Duties levied by Holkar State under the Indore Customs Act, as also under the custom laws of other covenanting States, were abolished under Section 4 of the Ordinance and Section 4 of Act No. 16 of 1949 and replaced by new duties under that section. The customs duties leviable under the customs laws of the covenanting States having been abolished, there can be no question of the continuance of any provision of the laws of the covenanting States regarding exemption from those duties. The duties levied under Section 4 of the Ordinance or Section 4 of the Act could be exempted only under Section 9 of the Ordinance or the corresponding provisions in Act No. 16 of 1949. The duties levied under Section 4 of the Ordinance or Section 4 of the Act could be exempted only under Section 9 of the Ordinance or the corresponding provisions in Act No. 16 of 1949. It may be noted that though Section 6 of the Ordinance and Section 6 of the Act charged duty on commodities existing on 14th August 1948 in the abolished free zones by referring to the duty which would have been charged on those goods under the appropriate law of the covenanting State, the levy of the duty was not imposed by force of the laws of the covenanting State, but it was under the sanction of Section 6 of the Ordinance and Section 6 of the Act itself. Even assuming that Section 23 and Section 24 of the Indore Customs Act, 1927, continued to remain in force under Section 7(1) of the Ordinance their continuance was subject to the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Ordinance. The effect of the words "subject" to" is to introduce a condition or proviso. That is the plain meaning of the words "subject to". The words "subject to" were not put in Section 7(1) for nothing. Sections 23 and 24 of the Indore Customs Act, if they continued to be in force, their continuance was subject to the provisions of Section 6. This means that the power to exempt from duty shall continue but that no exemption from duties charged under Section 6 of the Ordinance shall be granted. I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that Section 6 only made the commodities exist 0ing in free zones on 14th August 1948 liable to customs duty and that it did not take away the discretion of the Government to give exemption from those duties subsequently. The words used in Section 6 are "shall be charged" and not "shall be liable to pay duty". These words imposed an absolute obligation on the authorities to recover the duties specified in Section 6 of the Ordinance on goods existing in the abolished free zones on 14th August 1948 and did not leave them any discretion to relieve the owners of the goods of the obligation to pay the duty. These words imposed an absolute obligation on the authorities to recover the duties specified in Section 6 of the Ordinance on goods existing in the abolished free zones on 14th August 1948 and did not leave them any discretion to relieve the owners of the goods of the obligation to pay the duty. It follows, therefore, that the Government had no power to exempt the commodities charged under Section 6 of the Ordinance or under Section 6 of the Act, either under Section 9 of the Act or under Sections 23 and 24 of the Indore Customs Act, 1927. For these reasons, I am of the view that this appeal must be allowed and the Plaintiffs' suit must be dismissed. As the Appellant State has succeeded not on the defence or any of the grounds set out in the written statement, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs here and in the Court below. I agree. Appeal allowed.