JUDGMENT- S.H. KAPADIA, J.:---Both the above appeals arise from common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20th February, 1991, dismissing the above two writ petitions against which the present appeals have been filed. 2. The common question of law which arises in the above two appeals is as to whether the raw materials Alpha Olefin Sulfonate and Alpha Olefin, imported by the appellants, fell within Item 18 of Schedule H to the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 3. In order to answer the above question, the following facts, briefly, are required to be stated. (a) Appellants manufacture at their factory at Vikhroli, Greater Bombay, detergents for which the raw material used is a chemical known as Alpha Olefin Sulfonate (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brievity, as `AOS) as also Alpha Olefin (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brievity, as `AO). The process of manufacturing the detergents is as follows : (i) The AOS, which is imported by the appellants is in liquid form. After mixing it with inorganic builders and sodium alkyle benezene sulphonate the said AOS is made slurry, containing 50% water. This slurry is spray dried in the spray drying tomer to make the powder containing about 10% water. (ii) Similarly, when the said AOS is used in the manufacture of cake, it is mixed with inorganic builders. After mixing the material in a dough form, it is extruded through a plodder in a bar form which is cut to size. (b) The Corporation under section 192 of the said Act, 1888, are empowered to levy a tax called octroi, on the consignment of the above raw materials imported into City limits of Greater Bombay for use, consumption or sale. (c) By their letter dated 11th July, 1983 the second respondent called upon the appellants as to why the said AOS and AO should not be classified under Item 18, Schedule H to the Corporation Act, 1888. (d) By letter dated 8th August, 1983, the appellants submitted that octroi was not leviable as the said AOS and AO are chemicals used as raw materials in the manufacture of detergents and by themselves are not capable of being used for cleaning clothes, floors and utensils. (d) By letter dated 8th August, 1983, the appellants submitted that octroi was not leviable as the said AOS and AO are chemicals used as raw materials in the manufacture of detergents and by themselves are not capable of being used for cleaning clothes, floors and utensils. By the said letter it was pointed out that the appellants were required to mix the said raw materials with other ingredients before it could be used as detergents. In fact the manufacturers of the said AOS and AO had warned the appellants that normal safety precautions have to be followed as the said chemicals in undiluted forms could harm the hands and limbs if precautionary measures were not taken. In the circumstances, the appellants submitted that the said AOS and AO cannot fall under Item 18 of Schedule H to the said Act, 1888. (e) In the circumstances, the above writ petition came to be filed. In support of their contention, the appellants relied upon Suppliers Bulletin No. 980 to show that the said AOS and AO are raw materials. The appellants also placed reliance on affidavit of Dr. Mungekar, a Chartered Chemist to show that the said AOS and AO constituted industrial raw materials used for manufacturing detergents. The appellants also placed reliance on the affidavit filed by one Mr. P.M. Batliwala, a businessman, dealing in various chemicals including the above two raw materials. The said affidavit also shows that the said AOS and AO by themselves cannot be used for washing clothes, floors and utensils. To the same effect is the affidavit of another trader Girish Thakkar which also indicates that AOS and AO can be used only as ingredients for manufacturing detergents. In the circumstances, the appellants contended that Item 18 of Schedule H was not applicable to the said AO and AOS. (f) By their affidavit-in-reply dated 16th February, 1987, respondent No. 1 contended that the said raw materials imported by the appellants were in liquid form; that the Corporation was not aware in what form the same was used in the manufacture by the appellants; that appellants may be manufacturing detergents with AOS as one of their ingredients; that the real question was as to whether the said AOS and AO could be used directly as a detergent? According to the said affidavit, the said AOS and AO could be used directly as a detergent and in the circumstances, Item 18 of Schedule H squarely applied. In support of the said affidavit, the Corporation also relied upon the report of their Analyst dated 4th July, 1983. Even according to the said report, the said AOS and AO constituted ingredients in liquid detergents. The Corporation also relied upon affidavit of their Municipal Analyst dated 11th February, 1987, who has also deposed that the said AOS and AO constituted ingredients in shampoo and liquid detergents. (g) It is, therefore, not in dispute that the said AOS and AO constituted ingredients in detergents. The narrow question, therefore, which is required to be examined is the true scope of Item 18 of Schedule H to the said Act, 1888. (h) By the impugned judgment dated 20th February, 1991, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the said AOS and AO were used in the manufacture of detergents; that by themselves the said AOS and AO cannot be used for washing clothes, floors or utensils. However, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that Item 18 of Schedule H applied to ingredients usable in the manufacture of detergents. (i) Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment dated 20th February, 1991, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Mr. Taraporevala, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Suppliers Bulletin read with the affidavits filed by Dr. Mungekar, Shri Batliwala and Shri Thakkar clearly indicated that AO and AOS constituted ingredients in the manufacture of detergents and by themselves, the said AO and AOS were not capable of being used for washing floors, clothes and utensils under Item 18 of Schedule H. Mr. Mungekar, Shri Batliwala and Shri Thakkar clearly indicated that AO and AOS constituted ingredients in the manufacture of detergents and by themselves, the said AO and AOS were not capable of being used for washing floors, clothes and utensils under Item 18 of Schedule H. Mr. Taraporevala accordingly, submitted that a reading of Item 18 of Schedule H clearly indicated that articles like alum, ritha, caustic soda, phenyl etc., which preceded the expression "and substances used for washing floors, clothes and utensils" indicated that the expression "and substances" should be read in the context of the "Articles" preceding the said words and if so read, what is contemplated by Item 18 is that "Articles" like alum, phenyl, ritha etc., which are by themselves capable of being used for washing floors, clothes, and utensils which is not the case in relation to AOS and AO which are ingredients of detergents and, the said AOS and AO do not constitute articles capable of being used by themselves for washing clothes, utensils and floors. Mr. Taraporevala further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on technical meaning mentioned in the chemical dictionaries, particularly when Item 18 of Schedule H refers to Article(s) capable of being used by itself for washing. In the circumstances, it was submitted that Item 18 of Schedule H was not applicable to the said AO and AOS. 5. On behalf of the Corporation Mr. Singhvi submitted that the decision of the Corporation was based on the Analysts report dated 4th July, 1983, which clearly indicated that the said AO and AOS were capable of being used for washing clothes, floors and utensils. He further submitted that in any event, Item 18 of Schedule H was applicable to ingredients usable in manufacture of detergents. Mr. Singhvi accordingly submitted that the learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that Item 18 of Schedule H would apply to the facts of the present case. 6. We find considerable merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants herein. Firstly, the learned Single Judge has, after considering the various affidavits and the Report of the Analyst of the Corporation, come to the conclusion that the said AO and AOS constituted ingredients of the detergents and not the Articles of washing. 6. We find considerable merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants herein. Firstly, the learned Single Judge has, after considering the various affidavits and the Report of the Analyst of the Corporation, come to the conclusion that the said AO and AOS constituted ingredients of the detergents and not the Articles of washing. Secondly, Item 18 indicates that it is capable of being divided into two parts separated by the word `and. The first part enumerates various articles viz. alum, phenyl ritha etc. These are articles by themselves capable of being used for washing clothes, floors and utensils. If that position is made clear then the second part which read conjunctively, has to be read in the context of "Articles" preceding the second half and if so read, it is clear that what was intended was that the substances by themselves should be capable of being used as articles for washing floors utensils and clothes. If this interpretation is kept in mind, it is clear that both the raw materials AO and AOS cannot constitute articles which are capable of being used by themselves for washing floors, clothes and utensils. Thirdly, the interpretation placed by us is in consonance with the trade usage and the commercial parlance. In the circumstances, Item 18 of Schedule H to the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 do not apply to the said AO and AOS and the Corporation erred in classfying the said AO and AOS under Item 18 of Schedule H to the Act, 1888. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was in error in coming to the conclusion that Item 18 of Schedule H even applies to ingredients used in the manufacture of detergents. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th February, 1991, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 7. Before concluding we may point out that the appellants, by the above two writ petitions have sought refund of Rs. 1,31,959/- which shall be determined and refunded by the Corporation within 8 weeks from today. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th February, 1991, in Writ Petitions Nos. 1887 of 1983 and 1059 and 1986 is set aside. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 9. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th February, 1991, in Writ Petitions Nos. 1887 of 1983 and 1059 and 1986 is set aside. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 9. Consequently, the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellants stands hereby discharged. Appeal allowed.