JUDGMENT - PENDSE M.L., J.:—The respondents are a firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act and carry on business of dealing in liquors, wines and spirits. The respondents import Indian made foreign liquor into Greater Bombay and most of the imports are made from the State of Punjab. The respondents import diverse quantities of cases of Indian made foreign liquor from the manufacturers from time to time under the import passes issued under Maharashtra Import and Export of Liquor Rules, 1963. The respondents have secured licence to import the liquor and store the same in their bonded warehouse situated at Tejoriwalla Building, Corner of Grant Road, Bombay, in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1964. The Government of Bombay enacted the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 for the purpose of amending and consolidating the law relating to the promotion and enforcement of and carrying into effect the policy of prohibition and also the Abkari Law in the State of Bombay. Section 105 of this Act, inter alia, provides that an excise duty or countervailing duty, as the case may be, at such rate or rates as the Government shall direct may be imposed in respect of any alcoholic liquor for human consumption, when such liquor is imported, exported, transported, possessed, manufactured or sold in or from the State, as the case may be. Section 106 of the Act, inter alia, prescribes that the duties referred to in section 105 may be levied in accordance with the regulations made by the Commissioner in that behalf to regulate the time, place and manner of payment. The duty is required to be paid in the case of an excisable article imported by payment either at the time of its import; or upon issue for sale from a warehouse established or licensed under the provisions of the Act. Section 143 of the Act confers upon the State Government power to make Rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to revenues and in exercise of these powers, the Government has framed Rules known as Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rule, 1964. Section 143 of the Act confers upon the State Government power to make Rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to revenues and in exercise of these powers, the Government has framed Rules known as Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rule, 1964. The expression “to store foreign liquor in Bond” under Rule 2(9) means to store, deposit or keep foreign liquor in a bonded warehouse without payment of excise duty or countervailing duty or other fees payable thereon. 2. The Bombay Municipal Corporation is constituted under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and section 192(1) of the Act prescribes for levy of octroi tax. The section provides that the tax at rates not exceeding those respectively specified in Schedule H, shall be levied in respect of several articles mentioned in the said Schedule on the entry of the said articles into Greater Bombay for consumption, use or sale therein. Class 1 of Schedule H deals with articles of food and drink, and Item (3) is wines and spirits and beer, and the rate of octroi leviable on these articles is 7 per cent ad valorem. Section 195-1B provides that then Commissioner of the Corporation shall with the approval of the Standing Committee frame Rules in respect of the levy, assessment and collection of octroi under the Act, but such Rules can have effect only after the Rules are confirmed by the State Government. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 195-1B, the Commissioner has framed Octroi Rules in the year 1965 providing for levy, assessment and collection of octroi on import. Rule 2 of Octroi Rules deals with the definition of various terms and the expression “import” under Rule 2(2) means conveying of any article liable to octroi into Greater Bombay from any other area outside Greater Bombay. Rule 2(5) defines expression “date of import” which means the date on which the octroi is paid and in the event of non-payment of octroi at the time of import on account of any inadvertence, error or misunderstanding, it shall mean the date on which the articles are cleared from the place of import. Rule 2(5) defines expression “date of import” which means the date on which the octroi is paid and in the event of non-payment of octroi at the time of import on account of any inadvertence, error or misunderstanding, it shall mean the date on which the articles are cleared from the place of import. As the rate of octroi leviable on wines, spirits and beer is set at 7 per cent ad valorem, it is necessary for the authorities to ascertain the value of articles and the expression “value of articles” has been defined under Rule 2(7)(a). Before July 28, 1976 the relevant Rule read as under:- “2(7)(a). 'Value of the articles' where the octroi is charged ad valorem shall mean the value of articles made up of the cost price of the articles as ascertained from the original invoice plus shipping dues, insurance, excise duties, sales tax, vend fees, freight charges, carrier charges and all other incidental charges incurred by the imported till the arrival of the article at the place of import.” Rule 2(7)(a) was amended on July 28, 1976, and by amendment the customs duties were also included while ascertaining the value of the article. The amendment also provided that while ascertaining the value of the article the octroi duty incurred by the importer will be excluded. Prior to July 28, 1976 the value of the article, including other charges incurred by the importer till the arrival of the article at the place of import was taken into consideration, while after the amendment, value of articles including all the charges till the articles are removed from the place of import was to be taken into account. The Rule was further amended on June 28, 1983 and the Rule in existence from that date reads as under:- “Value of the articles where the octroi is charged ad valorem shall mean the value of the articles as ascertained from the original invoice plus shipping dues, insurance, custom duties, excise duties, countervailing duty, Sales Tax, transport fees, vend freight charges, carrier charges and all other incidental charges, excepting octroi, incurred or liable to be incurred by an importer till the articles are removed from the place of import.” 3. On December 26, 1981, the respondents approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1844 of 1981 complaining that while determining the value of the article for the purpose of payment of octroi duty, it is not permissible for the Corporation to take into account the countervailing duty as the said duty was neither incurred nor paid prior to the import of the goods into Greater Bombay. Rule 2(7)(a) was amended during the pendency of the petition, and thereafter the respondents claimed that even inclusion of countervailing duty in the Rule would not authorize the Corporation to levy octroi duty by assessing the value of the goods by inclusion of countervailing duty. After admission of the petition filed by the respondents, large number of petitions challenging the inclusion of countervailing duty while assessing the value of articles under Rule 2(7)(a) in respect of import of liquors, which on import were stored in the bonded warehouse, were filed. The petitions were resisted by the Corporation by claiming that the liability to pay the countervailing duty was incurred by the importer when the liquor was imported within the State of Maharashtra and the mere fact that collection of duty was deferred till the liquor was cleared from the warehouse cannot enable the importer to claim that while assessing the value of article, the countervailing duty should be excluded. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated January 14, 1986 held that the issue was concluded by the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1977 Mh.L.J. 293 (J.E. Billimoria and Sons v. Corporation of City of Nagpur)1. The learned Judge also held that the countervailing duty is neither incurred nor is liable to be incurred until after the bonded liquor has been removed from the place of import, and therefore such countervailing duty cannot be included in the value of the articles under Rule 2(7)(a) even after the amendment of the Rule in the year 1983. The learned Judge felt that there was no means of knowing what would be the applicable rate of countervailing duty on the date of removal from the bonded warehouse, and therefore it was impossible to calculate the value of the bonded liquor by including therein the countervailing duty. The learned Judge felt that there was no means of knowing what would be the applicable rate of countervailing duty on the date of removal from the bonded warehouse, and therefore it was impossible to calculate the value of the bonded liquor by including therein the countervailing duty. On the strength of this finding, the Corporation was directed to desist from including countervailing duty while assessing the value of the imported liquor which is to be stored in the bonded warehouse. The learned Judge gave consequential relief as regards refund of the duty already recovered. The Corporation has preferred this appeal to challenge the legality of the order. 4. Shri Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, submitted, that section 105 of the Bombay Prohibition Act creates a liability for payment of excise and countervailing duty and the liability arises at the point of import. Section 106 of the Act, says Shri Singhvi, merely defers collection of excise or countervailing duty till the date of removal from the warehouse for purpose of sale. It was further urged by the learned Counsel that the liability to pay octroi duty arises under the provisions of section 192 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and while determining the value of the imported article, it is necessary to ascertain the value by taking into consideration the amount which the importer is required to spend for effecting import. The liability to pay countervailing duty is incurred as soon as the imported liquor crosses the border and enters the State, and therefore, the value of the imported liquor would certainly include the countervailing duty which the importer is required to pay. Shri Andhyarujina and Shri Vahanvati, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the importers, submitted that liability to pay countervailing duty is incurred in accordance with provisions of section 106 of the Prohibition Act only when the imported liquor is released for sale from a bonded warehouse, and therefore, the liability is on a date subsequent to the date of import and cannot be included while assessing the value of the imported liquor at the time of crossing the octroi barrier. In view of the rival contentions, the principal question which falls for determination is when the liability to pay countervailing duty was incurred by the importers of liquor. 5. In view of the rival contentions, the principal question which falls for determination is when the liability to pay countervailing duty was incurred by the importers of liquor. 5. The expression “excise duty” and “countervailing duty” has been defined under section 2(14) of the Prohibition Act, and means such excise duty or countervailing duty, as the case may be, as is mentioned in Entry 51 in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 51 reads as under: “51. Duties of excise on the following goods manufactured or produced in the State and countervailing duties at the same or lower rates on similar goods manufactured or produced elsewhere in India: (a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption; (b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics; but not including medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol or any substance included in sub-paragraph (b) of this Entry.” Entry 51 and so also section 105 of the Prohibition Act, which is a charging section, makes a clear distinction between the excise duty and countervailing duty. Excise duty is in essence a tax on manufacture or production of goods and that excise duty can be levied only on such goods as are manufactured or produced within the State. The countervailing duty on the other hand is imposed for the purpose of setting off or compensating some other duty so as to place the home producer on an equal footing with the importer of foreign goods. It is, therefore, obvious that the countervailing duty is leviable only in respect of goods which are imported from outside the State of Maharashtra. The plain reading of section 105 of Prohibition Act makes it clear that the countervailing duty shall be imposed on any alcoholic liquor for home consumption when imported in the State of Maharashtra. The incidence of levy of countervailing duty occurs when the liquor is imported in the State of Maharashtra and this liability to pay countervailing duty has no relevance to the date when the imported liquor is brought within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The imported liquor is liable to pay octroi duty when the liquor is transported within the limits of Greater Bombay, but this octroi duty should not be confused with payment of countervailing duty. The imported liquor is liable to pay octroi duty when the liquor is transported within the limits of Greater Bombay, but this octroi duty should not be confused with payment of countervailing duty. The liability in respect of countervailing duty occurs as soon as imported liquor enters the boundaries of the State of Maharashtra and is payable to State and not Corporation. 6. Shri Andhyarujina submitted, with reference to provisions of section 106 of the Prohibition Act, that the countervailing duty can be levied in the case of an excisable article imported by payment upon issue for sale from a warehouse and therefore the liability to pay countervailing duty is not incurred by the importer till the liquor is removed from the bonded warehouse for the purpose of sale. The Government has framed Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1964, and expression “bonded warehouse” means a place in respect of which a licence for storage of foreign liquor without payment of duty is granted under the Rules. Any person desirous to store foreign liquor in bond has to make an application for a licence in that behalf to the Director through the Collector. The Director on inquiries and on receipt from the Collector, grants licence permitting to store in bond foreign liquor at the place specified on the application. The Rules prescribed that all transactions pertaining to the receipt, transport, storage and bond and issue of foreign liquor shall be under the excise supervision. These Rules merely confer an advantage on the importers of foreign liquor to store the liquor in the bonded warehouse and this facility is provided for an obvious purpose. The importers import large quantity of Indian made foreign liquor and it would be harsh to call upon the importer to pay the countervailing duty even before the importer is able to sell any part of it. It is also not possible for the importer to dispose of the large quantity within a short duration. The State Government, has therefore, framed Rules to enable the importer to store the liquor in bonded warehouse and has given a concession that the countervailing duty can be paid while the liquor is removed is removed from the warehouse for the purpose of sale. The State Government, has therefore, framed Rules to enable the importer to store the liquor in bonded warehouse and has given a concession that the countervailing duty can be paid while the liquor is removed is removed from the warehouse for the purpose of sale. The facility to store liquor in a bonded warehouse is on the basis that the importer would use or sell such bonded liquor in the State and the facility is not granted merely for the purpose of storage while the goods are in transit. Section 106 of the Prohibition Act provides that the countervailing duty may be levied in one or more of the following ways, and Clause (a) reads as under: “(a) in the case of an excisable article imported – (i) by payment either in the State at the time of its import or in the State or territory of export at the time of its export, or (ii) by payment upon issue for sale from a warehouse established or licensed under the provisions of this Act. Shri Andhyarujina submitted that in all cases where the goods are stored in a bonded warehouse, the liability to make payment of countervailing duty accrues only when the goods are removed for the purpose of sale, and according to the learned Counsel, the levy of countervailing duty and collection of the same is postponed to the date of such removal. It was contended that the incidence of duty arise on import of liquor in the State, but the levy and collection is postponed to the date of removal from the bonded warehouse. The submission is not accurate, because the liability to pay countervailing duty arises as soon as the imported liquor enters the State of Maharashtra, and what section 106 of the Prohibition Act prescribes is that the collection of duty is deferred till the date of removal of the liquor from the bonded warehouse. The submission is not accurate, because the liability to pay countervailing duty arises as soon as the imported liquor enters the State of Maharashtra, and what section 106 of the Prohibition Act prescribes is that the collection of duty is deferred till the date of removal of the liquor from the bonded warehouse. The submission that the levy of duty is postponed till the date of removal cannot be accepted in view of specific provision made by the Legislature by the first proviso to section 106, which reads as under: “Provided that where payment is made upon issue for sale from a warehouse established or licensed under this Act, such payment shall be at the rate of the duty in force at the date of issue from the warehouse.” The proviso unmistakably establishes that the legislature was conscious that though the duty is levied on import of the goods in the State of Maharashtra, the payment was deferred till the importer finds it convenient to remove the goods from the bonded warehouse, and therefore, the proviso specifically provides that the importer will have to pay duty at the rates prevalent on the date of removal. This proviso, in our judgment clearly destroys the submission of Shri Andhyarujina that the levy of duty is postponed till the date of removal. In case the submission is correct, then proviso becomes redundant as it was not necessary to prescribe that the rate of duty would be one which is prevalent on the date of levy of the tax. In our judgment, the combined reading of sections 105 and 106 of the Prohibition Act leaves no manner of doubt that the liability to pay countervailing duty is incurred when the liquor is imported in the State of Maharashtra and the payment or collection of such duty is postponed to the date of removal from the warehouse. An identical view as regards construction of sections 105 and 106 was taken by one of us (Pendse, J.) while delivering judgment in Writ Petition No. 631 of 1982 decided on June 19, 1986 and we are in agreement with the view taken therein. 7. Shri Andhyarujina referred to the decision of the Federal Court reported in A.I.R. 1939 F.C. 1 (In re. 7. Shri Andhyarujina referred to the decision of the Federal Court reported in A.I.R. 1939 F.C. 1 (In re. Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1939)2, and which is approved by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1281 (R.C. Jall Parsi Ors. v. Union of India Anr.)3, in support of the submission that a duty can be imposed at the stage which the authority finds to be the most convenient and most lucrative, no matter at what stage it is collected. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1512 (M/s. Shinde Brothers v. Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and Ors.)4, in support of submission that the excise duty which is levied on a manufacture or production of goods need not be imposed at the stage of production or manufacture but may be imposed later. With reference to these authorities, it was urged by the learned Counsel that even though the taxable event for the purpose of countervailing duty occurs on the import of liquor in the State of Maharashtra, the imposition of duty occurs only at the stage of removal of such liquor from the bonded warehouse. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel were subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1985(3) S.C.C. 230 (M/s. McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer)5, where it was observed that the incidence of excise duty is directly relatable to manufacture but its collection can be deferred to a later stage as a measure of convenience or expediency. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court clearly indicate that though the impost occurs on happening of an event as provided by the charging section, the collection of duty can be deferred to a subsequent date, and that is exactly what has been provided by section 106 of the Prohibition Act. The charging section 105 fixes the point of incurring of the liability on import of the liquor in the State, but the collection of the duty is postponed under section 106 till the date of removal of the liquor from the bonded warehouse for the purpose of sale. The charging section 105 fixes the point of incurring of the liability on import of the liquor in the State, but the collection of the duty is postponed under section 106 till the date of removal of the liquor from the bonded warehouse for the purpose of sale. It is, therefore, clear that the value of the imported liquor on the date of entering within the limits of the Greater Bombay, included the liability incurred for payment of countervailing duty, the liability which was incurred when the liquor was imported in the State of Maharashtra. 8. Rule 2(7)(a) of the Octroi Rules framed by the Corporation of Greater Bombay with effect from June 28, 1983, clearly provides that while assessing the value of article countervailing duty has to be taken into account. Shri Andhyarujina submitted that it is not possible for the octroi authorities to quantify the countervailing duty on the date when the liquor is imported within the limits of Greater Bombay, because even the importer is not aware about the quantum of duty payable on that date. The submission is that the countervailing duty is quantified when the importer removes the liquor from the bonded warehouse and as the First Proviso to section 106 of the Prohibition Act prescribes that the rate of duty would be one prevalent on the date of the removal, it is likely that the countervailing duty payable may be more or less than the one prevailing on the date of import of the liquor within the limits of State of Maharashtra. The learned Counsel urged that as the rate of countervailing duty or its quantification is not known while entering the limits of Greater Bombay. It is not permissible for the Octroi authorities to include the countervailing duty while assessing the value of the imported liquor. The submission is not correct, because the Octroi authorities are not concerned as to when the importer should remove the liquor from the bounded warehouse or what amount of countervailing duty the importer is liable to pay on the date of such removal. The submission is not correct, because the Octroi authorities are not concerned as to when the importer should remove the liquor from the bounded warehouse or what amount of countervailing duty the importer is liable to pay on the date of such removal. The octroi authorities are concerned with the question of assessing the value of imported liquor on the date when such liquor is brought within the limits of Greater Bombay and the value of the imported liquor would be determined by taking into account the countervailing duty prevalent on the date of import within the limits of State of Maharashtra. The mere fact that the duty may increase or decrease, at a subsequent date when the importer chooses to remove the liquor from the bonded warehouse would have no impact upon the fact as to what was the value of the liquor on the date when such liquor was brought within the limits of Greater Bombay. The change in the rate of countervailing duty is relevant only for the purpose of collection of such duty by the State Government and the suggestion that the rate of duty payable was not known on the date of import of liquor within the limits of the State and that should desist the octroi authorities from including it in the value of article is misconceived. The rate of countervailing duty on the imported liquor is known, because the liability to pay such duty arises when the liquor is brought within the State of Maharashtra. The octroi authorities determine the value of the imported liquor by taking into consideration the countervailing duty prevalent on the date the liquor enters the State of Maharashtra. The octroi authorities are not concerned with what are the rates prevalent on the date when the imported liquor enters within the limits of Greater Bombay or what are the rate which would be applicable when the liquor is removed from the bonded warehouse, and the authorities would include the amount of duty which was payable when the liquor was brought within the limits of State of Maharashtra. It is also necessary to note that Rule 2(7)(a) as amended with effect from June 28, 1983 provides that the value of the article would be determined by taking into consideration all the charges incurred or liable to be incurred by an importer. It is also necessary to note that Rule 2(7)(a) as amended with effect from June 28, 1983 provides that the value of the article would be determined by taking into consideration all the charges incurred or liable to be incurred by an importer. The expression “liable to be incurred” is of wider import and clearly indicates that not only the amount which has been spent by the importer but which the importer is required to be spent at a later date will also have to be included while assessing the value of the article. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the countervailing duty is neither incurred nor is liable to be incurred until after the bonded liquor has been removed from the place of import is not correct. 9. Shri Vahanvati submitted that the Corporation amended Octroi Rule 2(7)(a) by specifically including countervailing duty on June 28, 1983 and therefore it was not permissible for the octroi authorities to determine the value of the article prior to that date by inclusion of amount of countervailing duty. The learned Counsel urged that prior to June 28, 1983, the Corporation used to determine value of imported liquor by inclusion of countervailing duty and that action of the octroi authorities cannot be sustained. It is undoubtedly true that the countervailing duty was specifically included in Rule 2(7)(a) of the Octroi Rules for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the article on June 28, 1983, but the absence of specific reference to countervailing duty prior to that date cannot lead to the conclusion that countervailing duty must be excluded while determining the value of article. The value of the article is an amount for which a normal buyer would purchase such article from the normal seller. The price of the article while affecting sale would cover all the charges which the seller had incurred till the date of the transaction. The value of the article therefore on the date when the article enters the limits of Greater Bombay must include all the charges incurred by the importer. The liability in respect of countervailing duty arises when the liquor enters within the State of Maharashtra and that is the date long prior to the date when the liquor is brought within the limits of Greater Bombay by crossing the octroi barrier. The liability in respect of countervailing duty arises when the liquor enters within the State of Maharashtra and that is the date long prior to the date when the liquor is brought within the limits of Greater Bombay by crossing the octroi barrier. It is, therefore, obvious that the value of the article on the date of crossing the octroi barrier must include the countervailing duty, the liability for which was already incurred by the importer. Shri Singhvi is right in his submission that the expression “value of article” as existing prior to June 28, 1983 prescribes that the value shall be made up of the costs price of the article as ascertained from the original invoice plus shipping dues, insurance, custom duties, sales tax, insurance etc. and all other incidental charges incurred by the importer. The expression “all other incidental charges” is of wider ambit and takes in its sweep all the expenses which are necessary to be incurred by the importer before it is possible to bring the article within the limits of Greater Bombay. Take for example, the item of customs duty which was specifically included in Rule 2(7)(a) with effect from July 28, 1976. Can it ever be suggested that an article can be brought within the limits of Greater Bombay without payment of customs duty. The importer is duty bound to pay the customs duty before the article is permitted to cross the customs barrier. The mere fact that the customs duty was not specifically included in Rule 2(7)(a) prior to  July 28, 1983 cannot lead to an inference that prior to that date the value of article must be assessed by exclusion of the payment of customs duty. In our judgment, the proper approach would be to ascertain the value of the article by taking into account all the expenses which the importer is bound to incur before the article can be brought within the limits of Greater Bombay, and, therefore, the countervailing duty which the importer was liable to pay right from the enactment of sections 105 and 106 of the Prohibition Act must form and constitute a part of value of the article, and, therefore, the submission that countervailing duty could not be taken into consideration while assessing the value of article prior to June 28, 1983 cannot be accepted. 10. 10. Shri Andhyarujina and Shri Vahanvati submitted that an identical issue arose before the Division Bench of his Court in Bilimoria's case reported in 1977 Mh.L.J. 293 (supra) and the Division Bench in that case upheld the claim of the importer holding that under Rule 10(a) of the Octroi Rules framed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation it is not permissible to include the countervailing duty while determining the value of the article. It was urged by the learned Counsel that in view of the decision of the Division Bench, it is not permissible to take a different view in the present appeal. The submission is not correct for more than one reason. In the first instance, the decision in Bilimoria's case was given before Rule 10(a) was amended by Nagpur Corporation and therefore the later decision of the Division Bench clearly held that judgment in Bilimoria's case is not correct. Secondly, the effect of the decision in Bilimoria's case is considerably shaken after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell (supra). In Bilimoria's case Rule 10(a) read as follows: “10(a). Where the duty is chargeable on weight, gross weight including that of the packages or container shall be adopted. When the duty is chargeable ad valorem, the value thereof shall be the costs price to the importer plus all incidental charges such as customs duty, insurance, excise duty, sales tax and freight and such other charges incurred by the importer, till the arrival of the goods at the entrance Naka, if these have not already been included in the cost price.” The Division Bench held that value for ad valorem charge is price paid plus incidental charges incurred and the incidental charges are indicated by providing an illustrative list of such items and the list is obviously not exhaustive. The Division Bench then observed that the very concept of incidental charges as distinct from price is indicative of such other charges which is impressed on the goods and without payment of which the import of it would not have been possible. The Division Bench then observed : “It is thus the value at the entry that is all relevant for the purpose of calculation of the octroi and not appreciation or depreciation thereof. The Division Bench then observed : “It is thus the value at the entry that is all relevant for the purpose of calculation of the octroi and not appreciation or depreciation thereof. Prepaid or preincurred though not paid duties before the goods are imported within the city would clearly enter, constitute and partake in the nature of incidental charges and as such be part of the value.” 11. There cannot be any quarrel with these observations made by the Division Bench. The Division Bench then proceeded to hold that the expression “incidental charges incurred by the importer till the arrival of the goods at the entrance Naka” in Rule 10(a) appears to convey a pre-entry expenditure incurred by the person bringing the goods within the city of Nagpur and nothing else and it would not be proper to include within the word “incurred” the charges to be incurred after the import and because of certain other post-import events. These observations of the Division Bench are not accurate, because as mentioned hereinabove, the taxable event in respect of countervailing duty occurs when the liquor is imported in the State of Maharashtra and that event occured long prior to the entry of the article within the Municipal Limits. The conclusion of the Division Bench, therefore, that the liability to pay countervailing duty is a post-import event is not correct. The fact of import takes place on the goods entering within the limits of the State of Maharashtra and not when the goods cross the octroi barrier of a particular Municipality. In our judgment, this aspect of the matter was not brought to the attention of the Division Bench, and therefore, it is not possible to accept the conclusion recorded in the case of Bilimoria. The decision in Bilimoria's case was considered by another Division Bench of this Court sitting at Nagpur in a group of writ petitions, including Writ Petition No. 2348 of 1984 decided on November 30 1985. The decision in Bilimoria's case was considered by another Division Bench of this Court sitting at Nagpur in a group of writ petitions, including Writ Petition No. 2348 of 1984 decided on November 30 1985. The Division Bench considered the identical question and noted that Rule 10(a) of Nagpur Municipal Corporation was amended by additing Explanation II in the year 1984, and the Explanation II read as under : “Where goods are imported into octroi limits for being taken to a bonded warehouse, whereby the levy of customs or excise duty is deferred by the Central or State Government until goods are released from bond, octroi duty on such goods shall be charged on provisional basis at the entrance Naka on the cost price of the goods plus incidental expenses. When such goods are released from the bonded warehouse, the octroi duty shall be assessed on the basis of the value of the goods plus customs or excise duty over the provisional assessment shall be recovered from the importers at the time of release.” The Division Bench examined the decision of the Supreme Court in the McDowell's case and then concluded : “It is difficult to see how the excise duty cannot be added in the value only because the concession to defer the payment at the time of removal form the bonded warehouse is granted for the sake of convenience as per the Bond Rules. The liability is incurred at much earlier stage of arrival at Naka and indeed is a part of the purchase price.” The Division Bench then proceeded to examine the judgment in Bilimoria's case and declined to follow the conclusions therein in view of the fact that the Rule was amended by additional Explanation and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in McDowell's case was not available at the time of decision in the case of Bilimoria. The subsequent decision of the Division Bench is in accordance with the view taken by us and in our judgment of the Division Bench very rightly declined to follow the decision in Bilimoria's case. Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the subsequent decisions the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2348 of 1984 was dismissed. 12. The subsequent decision of the Division Bench is in accordance with the view taken by us and in our judgment of the Division Bench very rightly declined to follow the decision in Bilimoria's case. Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the subsequent decisions the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2348 of 1984 was dismissed. 12. In the case reported in A.I.R. 1979 Punjab Haryana 142 (M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Julhunder City and Ors.)6, an identical question arose for consideration while determining the ambit of Rule V.17 (3) of Punjab Municipal Account Code, 1930. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana held that the execution of the bond defers the payment and not liability to pay excise duty. The excise duty shall be deemed to have been levied at the time of import and its actual payment deferred till its issued from the warehouse. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that potential value of the liquor shall be taken to have been increased to the extent of the excise duty payable thereon for the payment of octroi, and the value of the liquor shown in the invoice without the excise duty will not be real. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In our judgment, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and it must be concluded that the action of the Corporation in including the countervailing duty while arriving at the value of the imported liquor cannot be faulted with. The Corporation was entitled to include countervailing duty while arriving at the value of article at all times and even before the period when such countervailing duty was not specifically included in Rule 2(7)(a) of the Octroi Rules. 13. Before parting, we must note that through the respondents in the petition had also challenged the inclusion of transport fee while assessing the value of the imported liquor that challenge was not pressed before the learned Single Judge or even during the hearing of this appeal. 14. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated January 14, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 1844 of 1981 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. The respondents shall pay the costs of the appellants throughout. 14. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated January 14, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 1844 of 1981 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. The respondents shall pay the costs of the appellants throughout. At this juncture, Shri Vahanvati appearing on behalf of the respondents orally applies for certificate to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave refused. Shri Vahanvati also applies for stay of operation of the judgment on the ground that the respondents would like to move the Supreme Court. Shri Dalal for the Corporation opposes the application and points out that in pursuance of judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge the Corporation has refunded an amount of Rs. Seventy five lakhs to the respondents and now the Corporation is entitled to seek restitution and the cannot be stayed. The submission of Shri Dalal is correct and therefore the application for stay of operation of the judgment is refused. Appeal allowed.