JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of orders passed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) by which refund applications of the petitioners were rejected. Since common question of law is involved in these petitions all the petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Few facts giving rise to these petitions are these. The petitioners imported certain consignments of goods under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme and Project Import Scheme. The petitioners claim that when the shipments arrived in Mumbai, they removed the goods to the customs bonded warehouse to avoid demurrage till the completion of the formalities for availing the concessional/reduced custom duty under the DEEC Scheme and the Project Investment Scheme. When the goods were removed to the customs bonded warehouses the petitioners lodged the Bills of Entry for warehousing and furnished bonds to the custom authorities equivalent to the whole of the estimated/provisional custom duty. At the time of removal of the goods to the customs bonded warehouse the BMC Bombay Municipal Corporation levied octroi duty on the said goods by adding the amount of estimated provisional custom duty to the CIF value of goods. Thereafter the goods were removed from the customs bonded warehouse by the petitioners on payment of reduced concessional custom duty. The petitioners preferred applications to the BMC for refund of octroi levied on the difference between the provisional/estimate custom duty and the concessional/reduced duty actually paid. The applications for refund were rejected by the BMC on the ground that the octroi charged on the value of consignment at the time and place of import was legal and proper. 3. The petitioners had also imported certain goods, such as components for heat exchangers, etc. to be used in their manufacturing process. When the goods arrived to the custom bonded warehouse, the custom authorities provisionally calculated the custom duty likely to be payable thereon as Rs. 5,04,201 on the CIF value of Rs. 8,20,373/-. The goods were cleared by the petitioners from the custom bonded warehouse at a concessional custom duty which was arrived at after deducting the total amount on the basis of a licence under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme acquired by the petitioners when the goods were stored in the customs bonded warehouse. In the meantime on 14-11-1998 the octroi duty was levied at Rs. In the meantime on 14-11-1998 the octroi duty was levied at Rs. 13,24,574 (CIF value of Rs. 8,20,373 plus provisional custom duty of Rs. 5,04,201). An application for refund was made to the BMC which also came to be rejected for the same reason viz. that the levy of octroi on the value of the consignment at the time and place of import is in accordance with law. The legality and correctness of the impugned orders passed by the BMC is questioned in these petitions. 4. Mr. Chitale learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the BMC is entitled to add custom duty to the CIF value of the imported goods only if customs duty is incurred or liable to be incurred. In the case of the petitioners, they are not liable to incur the full customs duty in view of the exemption granted under the various schemes. Mr. Chitale submitted that the liability to incur the customs duty arises only in the remote eventuality of the petitioners failing to utilise the said licence within its stipulated period. In that event the customs authorities are entitled to call upon the petitioners to pay the full customs duty from which they would have been otherwise exempted. Octroi duty becomes payable only in the event of the aforesaid remote eventualities taking place and therefore the Corporation is not at all justified in claiming octroi duty at the threshold on the national custom duty. Mr. Chitale placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay)1, reported in 1994(73) E.L.T. 39 Bombay. 5. In Ceat Tyres of India v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) the question before the Division Bench was whether the Corporation was right in adding the custom duty to the CIF value when the goods are exempted form the custom duty under the exemption scheme. In the said decision the Division Bench has held as under : "The plain reading of Rule 2(7)(a) makes it clear that the value of article is to be ascertained at the time of occurrence of the taxing event. The liability to pay octroi duty arises when the article crosses the octroi barrier of the Corporation. In the said decision the Division Bench has held as under : "The plain reading of Rule 2(7)(a) makes it clear that the value of article is to be ascertained at the time of occurrence of the taxing event. The liability to pay octroi duty arises when the article crosses the octroi barrier of the Corporation. While determining value of the article, every other duty paid in respect of the article is taken into consideration and the amount of the duty or the charge are included in the value of the article. While determining the value of the article, the quantum of custom duty, excise duty, sales tax etc. are also included. It is not in dispute that at the time of entry into octroi limits of the Corporation the company was not liable to pay any custom duty in view of the exemption granted by the Government. It is therefore difficult to appreciate how the Corporation can include the amount of customs duty while ascertaining the value of the article, it is not open for the octroi authorities to include the customs duty in the value of the article merely because of some future point of time the company may be liable to customs duty in case the company commits a breach of the conditions of the advance licence." 6. Mr. Bharucha the learned Counsel for the BMC submitted that the liability to pay the octroi arises as soon as the goods are brought within the octroi limits of the Corporation. Once the goods crossed the octroi barrier then the liability to pay the tax arises and the liability is not deferred till the importer chooses to file Bills of Entry for home consumption and remove the goods from the customs bonded warehouse. The learned Counsel submitted that the levy of octroi was in accordance with law and there is no scope for the petitioners to make an application for refund of such duty under the Act and the Rules. In this behalf Mr. Bharucha has relied upon the decision in the case of (The Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra and another)2, reported in 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 248 and also an unreported decision of the Division Bench in Appeal No. 217 of 1986 in Writ Petition No. 1 of 1981 (The Municipal Corporation for Gr. Bombay v. Shroff and Company)3, decided on 24/25th November, 1987. Bombay v. Shroff and Company)3, decided on 24/25th November, 1987. Mr. Bharucha submitted that the decision in the case of Ceat Tyres of India Limited is binding on the Corporation but when the Bill of Entry does not show that the goods imported were either under DEFC or Import Project Scheme, the Corporation is duty bound to levy octroi on the basis of custom duty as mentioned in the Bill of Entry. He submitted that there is no provisions for refund of the said duty which is recovered by the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7. Before adverting to the decision relied upon by Mr. Bharucha it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Chapter VIII of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 provides for municipal taxation and section 192 deals with levy of octroi tax. Sub-section (1) of section 192 of the Act provides that the tax shall be levied in respect of articles mentioned in Schedule H on the entry of the said articles into Greater Bombay for consumption, use or sale therein. The tax shall be called an 'Octroi'. Schedule H sets out the list of articles liable to payment of octroi. Section 195 of the Act deals with refund of octroi duty paid on export of the articles. Sub-section (1) prescribes that when any article upon which octroi has been paid shall be exported from Greater Bombay, the amount of tax levied shall be refunded in the manner prescribed in sub-section (IA) of section 195. At this stage a reference may be made to the relevant rules of Bombay Municipal Corporation of Levy of Octroi Rules, 1965. Sub-section (1) prescribes that when any article upon which octroi has been paid shall be exported from Greater Bombay, the amount of tax levied shall be refunded in the manner prescribed in sub-section (IA) of section 195. At this stage a reference may be made to the relevant rules of Bombay Municipal Corporation of Levy of Octroi Rules, 1965. Rule 2(7)(a) defines "value of articles" as under : "Value of Articles" where octroi is charged ad valorem shall mean and the value of the articles as ascertained form original invoices plus shipping dues, insurance, custom duties, excise duties, countervailing duty, sales tax, transport fee, and freight charges, carrier charges and all other incidental charges, excepting octroi incurred or liable to be incurred by the importer till the articles are removed from the place of import." Rule 4(c) of the said rules reads as under : "In respect of the articles imported from foreign ports subject to customs duty and liable to octroi it shall not be necessary for the importer to produce the original invoice but the weight and the value accepted by the customs shall be accepted as basis for the levy of octroi and octroi shall be levied on articles liable to octroi on ad valorem basis by adding the customs duty incurred or liable to be incurred to the aforesaid value accepted by the customer." Rule 26 deals with the refund application which reads as under : "When octroi has been wrongly recovered or has been recovered in excess through inadvertence, error, misconstruction, misinterpretation or any other reason on the part of the Municipal Octroi Staff or that of the agents appointed by the Commissioner under section 213 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, such excess may be refunded to the importer provided that a claim of such refund accompanied by the original invoice, octroi import bill, octroi receipt if any is lodged in the office of the Deputy Assessor and Collector (octroi) within a period of three months from the date of such recovery or within such longer period as the Commissioner may in any special case or class of cases allow. The said officer may, after being satisfied about the correctness and genuineness of the claim, grant refund of octroi wrongly recovered or recovered in excess." 8. The said officer may, after being satisfied about the correctness and genuineness of the claim, grant refund of octroi wrongly recovered or recovered in excess." 8. In the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (supra) the petitioner company had imported certain raw material for manufacture of its products in the mill at Thane. The goods were imported from abroad and were received at Bombay Docks. Some of the consignments which were required for immediate consumption were transported to Thane by Bills of Entry for home consumption. Some of the consignments were stored in the customs bonded warehouse located within the Municipal Limits of Bombay Municipal Corporation. The company was required to pay octroi duty on the entire amount and when the goods were cleared from the customs bonded warehouse an application was made for refund of octroi. The contention of the company was that it is not permissible for the Corporation to levy octroi duty when the consignments imported from abroad are merely stored in the customs bonded warehouse. The second contention raised by the company was that in any event, it is not permissible for the Corporation to recover octroi duty at the rate of 2% ad valorem and then refund only 93-3/4% when the consignments are exported out of Greater Bombay to Thane factory. Rejecting both the contentions the Division Bench observed as under : "The liability to pay duty arises as soon as the goods are brought within the octroi limits of the Corporation. Once the goods cross the octroi barrier, then the liability for payment of tax arises and the liability is not deferred till the company, chooses to file bills of entry for home consumption and remove the goods from the customs bonded warehouse. The contention that the company intends to use the imported articles only in their factory at Thane and which is outside the octroi limits of the Corporation and, therefore, the company is not liable to pay octroi duty is without any merit." 9. In the second decision relied upon by Mr. The contention that the company intends to use the imported articles only in their factory at Thane and which is outside the octroi limits of the Corporation and, therefore, the company is not liable to pay octroi duty is without any merit." 9. In the second decision relied upon by Mr. Bharucha in the case of The Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and another v. Shroff and Company (supra) the contention of the petitioner was 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 Division Bench held that octroi authorities are not concerned as to when the importer should remove the liquor from the bonded 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 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 choose 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 articles is misconceived. 10. 10. In the instant case when the goods were removed to the customs bonded warehouse, the relevant Bill of Entries show the amount of custom duty as declared and accepted by the Corporation and the fact that thereafter at the time of removal of the goods from the custom bonded warehouse, petitioners were not actually required to pay custom duty and paying of reduced custom duty is of no consequence. The incidence of tax arises when the goods are brought within the limits of the Municipal limits and once the goods cross the barrier of the said limits, question of tax does not arise at all. The Corporation is concerned with the price of the goods at the time of their entry in Bombay and what happens thereafter is wholly immaterial for the purpose of levy of octroi under the relevant Octroi Rules. It is not disputed before me that the Corporation has levied octroi on the basis of custom duty as disclosed in the relevant Bills of Entry. The fact that at the time of removal of goods from the cutom bonded warehouse the petitioners were not required to pay duty or paid only reduced or concessional duty, would not give right to claim refund of octroi which was otherwise, levied in accordance with law, Mr. Bharucha very fairly stated that if the Bill of Entry shows that the goods are brought under the exemption scheme the Corporation is required to levy octroi according to the concessional rate of duty in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench in the Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. (supra). Under the circumstances no fault could be found with the impugned orders of the Corporation rejecting the application made by the petitioner company for refund of the duty. All the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. Petitions dismissed. -----