S. B. Capoor, H. R. Khanna ( 1 ) THE short qaestion, which arises for determination in these two writ petitions Nos. 620-D and 688-D of 1966 filed by the Delhi Cloth and General Mils Company Limited, Delhi, and the Ganesh Flour Mills Company Limited Delhi, respectively, is whether terminal tax on the import of g. round-nut oil and other edible vegetable oils within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is payable in accordance with the rates specified in entry No. 3 or those specified in entry No. 16 of Class I of the Tenth Schedule of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (66 of 1957) (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE respondents in Civil Writ No. 620-D are the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Union of India, while those in Civil Writ No 688-D are the Commisioner, Municipal Corporation, Delhi, and the Union of. India. The two petitioner-companies (are engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable) ghee in Delhi and for that purpose import raw. unprocessed and unrefined ground-nut oil, til oil and sunflower oil from all over India. According to sub-section (1) of section 178 of the Act, on and from the date of the establishment of the Corporation, there shall be levied on all goods carried by railway or road into the union territory of Delhi from anyplace outside thereof, a terminal tax at the rates specified in the Tenth Schedule, Class I of the Tenth Schedule deals with the rates of terminal tax on articles of food and drink, Eatries Nos. 3 and 16 of Class tread as under : ARTICLES Terminal Tax payable per maund of gross weight except where otherwise stated. Rs. 3. Ghee including vegetable ghee, and admixtures of ghee also vegetable solidified oil dripring marvo trex, cocogold , purico, crisco and cocogem 1. 75 16. Animal fat, tallow and oil of all kinds except oils mentioned in class III, V and fx. . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 29"before 22nd July 1966 terminal tax on the import of ground-nut oil and other vegetable oils within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Delhi, was charged in accordance with the rates mentioned in entry No. 16, i e. , Rs. 0. 29 Paise per maund, and with effect from 1st April 1965 at Re. 1. 00 per quintal. . . 0. 29"before 22nd July 1966 terminal tax on the import of ground-nut oil and other vegetable oils within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Delhi, was charged in accordance with the rates mentioned in entry No. 16, i e. , Rs. 0. 29 Paise per maund, and with effect from 1st April 1965 at Re. 1. 00 per quintal. On 22nd July 1966 the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation issued instructions to the terminal tax collection staff that terminal tax on the import of grond nut oil and similar other vegetable oils be charged at the rate of Rs. 4. 85 Paise per quintal in accordance with entry No. 3 and not at the rate of Re. 1. 00 per quintal the rate mentioned in entry No. 16. The petitioners have challenged the levy of terminal tax on the import of ground-nut oil and other vegetable oils at the rate of Rs. 4. 85 per quintal instead of Re. 100 par quintal, and according to them ground-nut oil and other vegetables oils are covered by entry No. 16 and not entry No 3. As against that the case set up on behalf of respondent No. 1 in both the petitions is that ground-nut oil and other oils mentioned in the aforesaid instructions are admixtures of ghee and fall under entry No. 3 reproduced above. The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, it is stated, in issuing the impugned instructions only corrected the error or mistake which had occurred in the past. ( 3 ) FROM the resume of facts given above, it is clear that the first question which arises for determination is whether ground-nut oil is an admixture of ghee as mentioned in entry No. 3. The process of the preparation of vegetable ghee has been given in the two cases of M/s Tungabhadra Industries Ltd, Kurnool v. The Commercial Tax Officer. Kurnool^, and Union of India and another v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. , Ltd. " It is, however, not necessary to reproduce that process. For the purpose of the present case it is sufficient to state that it is the common case of both the parties that ground nut oil is the principal constituent and ingredient out of which vegetable ghee is prepared. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, Volume I, the word "admixture means" "1. For the purpose of the present case it is sufficient to state that it is the common case of both the parties that ground nut oil is the principal constituent and ingredient out of which vegetable ghee is prepared. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, Volume I, the word "admixture means" "1. The action of mingling as an ingredient ; the fact of being so mingled. 2. That which is mixed with anything ; an alloy. " Accepting the above meaning of the word "admixture" ground-nut oil, in our opinion, cannot be said to be an admixture of ghee or vegetable ghee though it may be the chief ingredient for the preparation of vegetable ghee When the Legislature used the word "admixtures of ghee" in entry No. 3, it meant, in our view, anything which was mixed with ghee or vegetable ghee and not something which was used as the principal ingredient for the preparation of ghee. It is significant that entry No. 4 in Class I of the Tenth Schedule deals with butter and cream, and provides the rate of terminal tax for those articles of food. Had the word admixture been used in the sense of being the principal component or ingredient of ghee, entry No. 4 would be superfluous and otiose because butter and cream would, according to the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents, be already provided for in entry No. 3. Entrv No. 4 thus lends colour to the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the word admixture" in entry No. 3 has not been used to denote the principal component for the preparation of ghee and vegetable ghee. ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH arguments have been addressed to us in the two petitions mainly in respect of ground-nut oil. it is not disputed that so far as other edible or vegetable oils mentioned in direction dated 22nd July, 1966 of the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation are concerned the same decision would govern them. So far as the words "vegetable solidified oil" mentioned in entry No- 3 are concerned, in our view they refer to vegetable oil which has assumed the solid form through someproces of human agency as distinguished from oils which have assumed that form on account of drop in temperature by weather. ( 5 ) THE matter can also be looked at from another angle. ( 5 ) THE matter can also be looked at from another angle. According to entry No. 16 terminal tax on import of oils of all kinds except oils mentioned in Classes I I I, V and IX is payable at the rate mentioned in that entry. Class III deals with the articles used for fuel, lighting and washing. Class V relates to drugs spices and perfumes, while Class IX pertains to miscellaneousarticles Plain reading of entry No. 16 shows that it is of a comprehensive nature and deals with oils of all kinds except oils mentioned in Classes III, V and IX. Had it been the intention of the Legislature to exclude edible vegetable oil such as ground-nut oil which forms the principal component for the preparation of vegetable ghee from the ambit of entry No. 16, there was nothing to prevent it from making an exemption in that entry in respect of ground-nul oil and other edible vegetable oils also along with oils in Classes III, V and IX. If ground-nut oil and other similar edible oils were intended to be covered by entry No. 3, entry No. 16 would have read "animal fat, tallow and oil and all hinds except oils mentioned in entry No. 3 of Class I and in Classes III, V and IX. " The fact that Legislature neither gave specific exemption to ground-nut oil and other similar edible oils nor added the underlined words in entry No. 16, in our view, clearly goes to show that terminal tax on ground-nut oil and similar other edible oil was intended to be paid in accordance with entry No. 16 and not in accordance with entry No. 3. ( 6 ) RELIANCE on behalf of the respondents has been placed upon the affidavits of Shri Sudhamoy Roy and Dr. Sadgopal according to whom the ground nut oil and other similar vegetable oils fall under entry No. 3 and not under entry No. 16. This, however, is essentially a matter which is for the Court to decide by reference to the relevant provisions. If on consideration of these provisions the Court comes to the view that that ground nut oils and other similar edible oils are covered by entry No. 16 and not entry No 3, its decision would not be affected by the above-mentioned expert opinion. If on consideration of these provisions the Court comes to the view that that ground nut oils and other similar edible oils are covered by entry No. 16 and not entry No 3, its decision would not be affected by the above-mentioned expert opinion. ( 7 ) REFERENCE has been made on behalf of the respondents to entry No. A-17 of Appendix b of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which deals with twelve types of edible oils and it has been argued that such of the edible oils as are used for the preparation of vegetable ghee fall in entry No. 3 of Class I REFERRED TO above, while the other edible oils fall in entry No. 16. We, however, find no basis in the different entries in the Tenth Schedule of the Act to warrant such a distinction. Apart from that, we are of the view that the different entries in the Tenth Schedule of the Act have to be construed on perusal of the relevant provisions of that Act not by reference to the entries in Appendix b of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that the ground-nut oil is also used for the purpose of preparing toilet articles. The ground nut oil imported for the preparation of toilet articles can hardly be called an admixture of ghee, yet according to the submission made on behalf of the respondents, it would be taxed as such. It is also obvious that the Municipal Terminal Tax authorities cannot determine the purpose for which the ground nut oil imported in Delhi is ultimately going to be used, for the levy of terminal tax depends upon the nature of article and not the ultimate purpose for which it is to be Used. ( 9 ) LASTLY, it has also been argued on behalf of ,the respondents that it is primarily for the Municipal Authorities to determine as to whether the import of ground nut oil and similar other vegetable oil is covered by entry No. 3 of by entry No. 16. REFERRED TO adove, and that Court can only interfere if the view taken by the Municipal authorities is manifestly unreasonable. Reference in this connection has been made to A. V. Vankateswaran v. Ramchand Sobraj Wadhwani and another, and Collector of Customs, Madras v. K. Ganga Setty. REFERRED TO adove, and that Court can only interfere if the view taken by the Municipal authorities is manifestly unreasonable. Reference in this connection has been made to A. V. Vankateswaran v. Ramchand Sobraj Wadhwani and another, and Collector of Customs, Madras v. K. Ganga Setty. The above mentioned two authorities cannot be of much avail to the respondents, because the direction issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation for chargimg terminal tax in accordance with the rates mentioned in entry No. 3 and not entry No. 16, in our view, is manifestly erroneous and clearly unreasonable. ( 10 ) WE, therefore, allow the petitions with costs and quash the direction dated 22nd July, 1966 of the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation for the levy of terminal tax on ground nut oil and other vegetable oils at the rate of Rs. 4. 85 Paise instead of Re. 1. 00 per quintal. Petition allowed. decretal amount paid into Court by the judgment-debtor, after the decree had been satisfied by payment made by another judgment-debtor was held maintainable under s. 47 C. P. Code against the decree-holder who had withdrawn the amount. ( 11 ) IN B. V. Patankar and others v. C. G. Sastry this Court held that an application by the judgment-debtor for an order for restoration Of possession of property from which the judgment-debtor was evicted without notice, in execution of a decree which had become unenforceable, because of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, wasmaintainable. ( 12 ) IT is not necessary to multiply cases-and they are many-in which applications by judgment debtors raising questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction not falling within 0. 21 r. 2 were held maintainable, and absence of a proceeding by the decree-holder to execute the decree was held not to be a bar to the maintainability of the applications. In our view, the High Court of Madras was right in its interpretation of s. 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, when they observed in Erusappa Muddalair v. Commercial and Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. (8) - "we are unable to accede to the contention that, with reference the terms of section 244, the question raised by the petition could only be raised in answer to a claim made on an application * * for execution. That section simply provides that questions arising between the parties to the suit and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by order ot the Court executing the decree and not by separate suit. We cannot construe the words "a Court executing a decree" as meaning, that the section only covers cases ot proceedings initiated by the decree-holder and does not include applications (relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree) made by the judgment debtor. "we are unable to hold that the dictum of the Punjab High Court in Mst. Bhagwani v. Lakhim Ram and Another that "as no execution proceedings (at the instance of the decree-holder) were pending, the Court (which was called upon to determine whether there was. on adjustment of a decree by an executory contract) could not be regarded as one which was executing the decree is correct. There is, in our judgment, no anthithesis between 47 and 0. 21 r. 2: the former deals with the power of the Court and the latter with the procedure to be followed in respect of a limited class of cases relating to discharge or satisfaction of decrees. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. A ppeal dismissed.