JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:---Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm having its registered office at Calcutta and a branch office at Bombay. The petitioners are founders and mechanical engineers and are having a factory at Ghatsila (Bihar). In the said factory the petitioners manufacture cast iron pipes and fittings under the brand name 'HEP'. The said cast iron pipes and fittings are sent by the petitioners to their Bombay Branch Office for sale in the local market. These goods upon their entry into Greater Bombay are liable to octroi under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") 2. The petitioners had been marketing these pipes and pipe fittings in Greater Bombay ever since 1980. From 1980 upto November 1987, pipes and pipe fittings brought by the petitioners into Bombay were treated by the appropriate authorities for the purpose of levy of octroi as pipes falling under Item 47 of Schedule H appended to the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The rate of octroi leviable under the said item is 1½% ad valorem. Sometime in November 1987 the Corporation wanted to realise octroi from the petitioners on the said product at the rate of 4% by reclassifying the same as falling under Item No. 28 of Schedule H. The action of the respondents was opposed by the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the respondents continued to allow clearance of the goods on the realisation of duty at the rate of 1½% ad valorem treating the goods as falling under Item No. 47. This was done upto 20th January 1988. After 20th January 1988 the petitioners started to levy octroi at the rate of 4% ad valorem on the ground that the pipes and pipe fittings did not fall under Item 47 but were covered by Item 28 of the Schedule H. The petitioners paid the duty under protest and asked the Assessor and Collector (Octroi) of the respondent Corporation to supply a copy of the order by which duty had been enhanced from 1½ to 4%. The officer concerned refused to give a copy of the office order. He, however, informed the petitioners that the octroi staff had been instructed to classify pipes and pipe fittings under Item 28 instead of Item 47 as had been done in the past and to realize octroi at the rate of 4% ad valorem. The officer concerned refused to give a copy of the office order. He, however, informed the petitioners that the octroi staff had been instructed to classify pipes and pipe fittings under Item 28 instead of Item 47 as had been done in the past and to realize octroi at the rate of 4% ad valorem. Under such circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition. This Court issued rule and restrained the respondents from recovering octroi duty in excess of 1½% on condition that the petitioners furnished a Bank guarantee for the difference. Ever since the filing of the writ petition the petitioners have been paying duty at the rate of 1½% and furnishing Bank guarantee for the difference. 3. The controversy is now in a very narrow compass. There is no dispute about the commodity in question or its nature. The commodity is iron pipes and fittings. There is also no dispute about the fact that from 1980 till 20th January 1988 the respondents themselves had classified this commodity under Item 47 of Schedule H treating it as iron pipe falling under sub-Item C (xvi). It was only with effect from 20th January 1988 long after eight years that the respondents changed their mind and interpreted the item differently than what they have been doing all throughout and issued instructions unilaterly even without hearing the petitioners or similarly situated persons who were admittedly seriously affected by such change of interpretation and directed the staff at the octroi gate to start recovering octroi at the rate of 4% as against 1%. Even no copy of this instruction was sent to the petitioners nor any public notice was issued to this effect. Everything was done as if it was an internal arrangement. Certainly this is not the way the Corporation should deal with the interpretation of taxing items. This is a commodity which the Corporation itself for long 8 years had been treating as one falling under Item 47 attracting octroi at the rate of 1½% ad valorem. All those who were liable to pay octroi on this commodity knew that the rate of octroi was 1½%. There was no amendment in the law. There was no public notification issued even about the change of the interpretation. All those who were liable to pay octroi on this commodity knew that the rate of octroi was 1½%. There was no amendment in the law. There was no public notification issued even about the change of the interpretation. Nor any reason given as to what made the Corporation to change the interpretation which they themselves gave to Item 47 long back and on which it acted upon for the past eight years in all cases including the case of the petitioners. Evidently instruction were issued behind the back of those who were affected to the recovering officers at the check gates to recover octroi at a higher rate. Such action on the part of the authority enforcing or administering statues which provides for realisation of taxes or fees from the public cannot be commanded. I hope the Corporation in future will not act in the manner in which it has done in this case and even if there is a controversy or dispute about the taxability of any particular item it will give proper reasons and issue proper orders and inform the same to the public before they are sought to be given effect to. 4. Reverting to the real controversy in this writ petition, it may be observed that Schedule H to the Act specifies various items which are subject to octroi and also the rates at which duty is leviable. The various articles liable to payment of octroi are specified in different items. These items are grouped under different classes which are also numbered. Item 47 comes under "Class VIII--metals and articles made of metals". Item 47 which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows : "47. Iron and steel-- (a) pig iron, (b) blooms, billets and slabs, (c) structural--(i) joints, (ii) channels, (iii) angles, equal or unequal, (iv) bulbs or toes, (v) light rails (vi) fish plate for light rails, (vii) shell, steel ingots, blooms, billets and bars, (vii) black or galvanised sheets, plain or corrugated, (ix) plates, ordinary mild steel including boiler and high tensile ship building or bullet proof, (x) bars and rods, (xi) bolts, nuts, washers, rivets and such other articles, (xii) wire barbed, telegraph or other kinds of black galvanised, (xiii) wire nails (xiv) spring steel, vehicular or flat bars, (xv) hoops and strips, and (xvi) pipes. "Maximum rates of octroi leviable. (Rs. "Maximum rates of octroi leviable. (Rs. 6 per metric ton.)" It may also be expedient to set out two more items viz. 48 and 49 which also have a bearing in this case. "Maximum rates of octroi leviable 48. Iron and steel scrap-- Rs. 6 per metric ton. 49. Iron and steel-any other articles-- manufactured from iron or steel other than cutlery, hardware and machines or machine parts not specifically provided for. Rs. 6 per metric ton." The rate of octroi leviable on these three items was fixed by the State Government by issue of notification under section 192 of the Act on ad valorem basis at the rate of 1½%. As stated earlier, the respondents themselves had been treating pipes and pipe fittings as falling under Item 47(c)(xvi). It was with effect from 20th January 1988 that the respondents changed their mind and came to a conclusion that this commodity falls not under Item 47 but under Item 28 of the schedule which provides for levy of octroi at the rate of 4% ad valorem. Item 28 includes "glass, glassware, chinaware, enamelware, all kinds of crockery used for construction or decoration of buildings and sanitary fittings, metal valves, brass cocks and their fittings." The rate of octroi leviable on this item is 4% ad valorem. This item has been put in class IV with various other items which deals with articles used in the construction of buildings, roads and other structures and articles made of wood or cane. In this class there are nine items. Item 23 is cement, Item 24 is coal tar, asphalt, bitumen, flooring stone etc. Item 25 is glazed bricks, tiles, marble pieces etc., Item 26 deals with paints, distemper etc. Item 27 is yellow earth and earth of any other kind except red earth. Item 28 has already been set out above. Item 29 is roofing felt. Item 30 deals with timber, ballies, cane and articles made of any of them, doors, windows, frames etc. Item 31 deals with plywood, soft boards etc. The description of these items has been briefly set out only to show that under this head all items that are used in the construction of buildings, roads etc., have not been included. It is only some of such items that are specified in the various items. Item 31 deals with plywood, soft boards etc. The description of these items has been briefly set out only to show that under this head all items that are used in the construction of buildings, roads etc., have not been included. It is only some of such items that are specified in the various items. It is not in dispute that iron and steel is one of the major articles in the construction of buildings etc. but it does not find place in this class. So it cannot be said that all articles used in the construction of buildings should be interpreted in a way so as to take them within the ambit of any one of the items falling under Class IV. It is only articles which are specified in the various items in this class that will be subject to octroi under the respective item and no other article. Item No. 28, as set out above, clearly goes to show that it deals with glass, glassware, chinaware, enamelware, all kinds of crockery used for construction or decoration of buildings and sanitary fittings, metal valves, brass cocks and their fittings. Evidently, these are the items which are all required after the basic structure is complete. What is included in it is "sanitary fittings". Every pipe does not become a sanitary fitting. Pipes have various uses. A pipe may be used for the purpose of sanitation. That by itself cannot change its description as "pipe" and convert it into "sanitary fitting" more so when the legislature has specifically incorporated "iron and steel pipes" as a separate and distinct commodity in Item 47 for the purpose of levy of octroi. 5. The only question that remains for consideration is when the heading against Item 47 shows only iron and steel pipes, whether pipe fittings would also be included or they will fall outside this item. So far as this aspect is concerned, I find that the controversy stands concluded by a judgment of the Supreme Court in (Bharat Forge Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise)1, 1990(45) E.L.T. 525 . This was a case where the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret Item 26AA(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff which reads as follows : "Pipes and tubes (including blanks therefor) all sorts, whether rolled, forged, spun, cast, drawn, annealed, welded or extruded". This was a case where the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret Item 26AA(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff which reads as follows : "Pipes and tubes (including blanks therefor) all sorts, whether rolled, forged, spun, cast, drawn, annealed, welded or extruded". In this case also a controversy was raised as to whether pipe fittings are different than pipes. It was contended that in the market pipe fittings are known as a totally different commercial commodity. This contention was repelled by the Supreme Court. It was observed that the expression "pipe fittings" merely denotes that it is a pipe or tube of a particular length, size or shape. It was further observed that pipe fittings do not cease to be pipes and tubes: they are only a species thereof. Normally pipes and tubes are produced as long and straight pieces. But by themselves they cannot fulfil all the needs or the end use for which they are intended. To get the maximum use out of the pipes and tubes, it is necessary not only to produce long and straight pipes and tube but also to turn out pipes and tubes of smaller dimensions and of different shapes and curves such as bends, elbows, 'T' pieces, 'Y' pieces, plugs, caps, flanges, joints, unions, collars and so on. This is done by a process of forging, welding, hammering and so on applied to the longer tubes but basically the items remain the same and the use also remains the same. The tariff entry calls for no distinction between pipes and tubes manufactured out of sheets, rods, bars, plates or billets and those turned out from larger pipes and tubes. It may be pertinent here to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court : "It is true that all pipes and tubes cannot be described as pipe fittings. But it would not be correct to say that pipe fittings are not pipes and tubes. They are only a species of pipes and tubes. ............." 6. In view of this clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court it is not necessary to refer to the various other decisions dealing with the interpretation of taxing items in fiscal statues nor to deal with the principle of interpretation. These need no reiteration. They are only a species of pipes and tubes. ............." 6. In view of this clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court it is not necessary to refer to the various other decisions dealing with the interpretation of taxing items in fiscal statues nor to deal with the principle of interpretation. These need no reiteration. It may also be observed in this case that in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Bharat Forge Press Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), it is clear that pipes and pipe fittings fall under Item 47 of Schedule H and were correctly so classified by the authorities all throughout till they decided to change their decision on 20th January 1988 and to reclassify them under Item 28. It may be appropriate to observe that while changing the interpretation of taxable commodities, the authorities concerned should keep in mind the well settled law laid down by the Supreme Court that interpretation given by the authorities and acted upon by them for long years should not be changed or departed from. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in (K.P. Varghese v. I.T. Officer Ernakulam)2, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1922. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that iron and pipe fittings fall under Item 47 of Schedule H. The respondents had rightly treated them as falling under that item right from 1980 to 1988. The decision taken by them on 20th January 1988 to treat them as falling under Item 28 is not correct and the said decision is, therefore, set aside. 8. In the result, petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents prays for stay of this judgement. I do not find that any case has been made out for stay. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. Certified copy expedited. Petition allowed. *****