JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:--The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and was running a factory located at E-4, M.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. The factory was engaged in processing steel rods. For the purpose of the processing activities the petitioner was procuring steel rods and wire from Bombay market and the same used to be transported for the requirements of the Aurangabad factory. After processing the material received from Bombay, at the Aurangabad factory, the processed material was exported out of the Municipal area of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner therefore, claimed refund of octroi under Rule 16 as framed under sections 454 and 457 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short Corporations Act) and the claim of the petitioner was turned down by the Corporation contending that the processed material exported outside the Municipal Corporation limits by the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 16(e) of the Octroi Rules. 2.The Octroi is imposed under section 147 of the Corporations Act on all the goods imported into the city for the purpose of consumption, use or sale therein unless they are imported for immediate exportation as provided therein. Sub-section (7) of section 457 of the Corporations Act has empowered the Corporation to make rules in respect of the assessment and recovery of taxes and accordingly the Corporation has framed Octroi Rules under the said provision. Rule 4 of the Octroi Rules empowers the Corporation to levy Octroi on all goods of the description given in schedule C on the import of such goods for the purpose of consumption, use or sale within the Octroi limits of the Corporation and such Octroi shall be payable at the rates specified for such goods respectively in the said schedule. Rule 5 of the said Octroi Rules deals with exemptions from the levy of Octroi. Rule 16 which is an important for the decision in this petition deals with refund of Octroi on export of goods imported for consumption, use or sale and states that refund of 90% of the Octroi paid on goods imported for consumption, use or sale shall be admissible on their export subject to all the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) to (h). Clause (e) which is material in the instant case reads thus: "(e) The goods have not since their import changed in any manner whatsoever their original form, conditions, state or appearance by any process of manufacture or otherwise: Provided that goods shall not be deemed to have changed their form within the meaning of this rule by reasons that they are wood, which since its import has been cut and made into beams planks and rafters or grain or tur, ground and converted into pulses or tobacco converted into stuff or bidis, or rice parched and made into murmuras, or wheat or the other grain made into flour." Rule 18 of the Octroi Rules provides that if Octroi is levied on goods which are eligible for exemption under the Act or these Rules, refund of Octroi shall be given to the importer in the manner prescribed by Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 14 lays down the procedure to be followed for exporting the goods imported for consumption, use or sale in order to become eligible for obtaining refund admissible under the rules. 3.The petitioner contends that the iron rods and wire which are imported from Mumbai and exported outside the Corporation limits after the said goods are processed at Aurangabad factory, they have not changed their original form, condition, state or appearance and the process which is carried out on the said imported material before it exported does not amount to manufacturing process. We are therefore, required to examine whether the raw material imported by the petitioner has in any way undergone any change in its appearance, form, condition or state when it is exported outside the Octroi limits of Corporation and whether it has undergone any process of manufacture or otherwise while such a change has been brought in its form or appearance. 4.The petitioner has stated that the iron rods and wire which is processed at the factory at Aurangabad undergoes in the said process the operations of pickling, threading, flattening and galvanising. The details of these three processes have been elaborately set out by the petitioner in para 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d). During the period from 1-7-84 to 30-6-87 the petitioner had imported about 8535 M. tons of iron roads/wires and after carrying out the said processes, the processed material was exported outside the Municipal limits during the period of three years. During the period from 1-7-84 to 30-6-87 the petitioner had imported about 8535 M. tons of iron roads/wires and after carrying out the said processes, the processed material was exported outside the Municipal limits during the period of three years. The total amount of Octroi remitted by the petitioner during the relevant period of three years thus comes to Rs. 9,37,004/-. 5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions for refund of the Octroi on the ground that the material which was imported from outside has been exported without alterations or change in its appearance, conditions or state after processing at the factory at Aurangabad has relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court. (1) (M/s. Gungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool)1, 1961(2) S.C.R. 15, (2) (Union of India and another v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.)2, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 791. (3) (Kathiawar Industries Ltd. v. Jaffrabad Municipality)3, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1721. (4) (Municipal Council, Damoh v. M/s. Vraj Lal Manilal and Co. and others)4, 1982(2) Bom.C.R. 383 : A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 844. (5) (Bhaskar Textile Mills Ltd. v. Jharsuguda Municipality and others)5, 1984(2) S.C.C. 25 . In addition the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of (Khandelwal Traders, Akola v. The Akola Municipal Council)6, A.I.R. 1985 Bombay 218. 6.In the case of Khandelwal Traders (supra) it was held by the Court that where a dealer imports goods within the Octroi limits of a city not for purposes of ultimate consumption or sale but for purpose of export and obtains permission for export, he is not liable to pay Octroi on such goods notwithstanding that for the purpose of export he sells the goods to other person within the Octroi limits and such other person is also not liable to pay Octroi. The issue did not arise as to whether the goods were processed by any manufacturing process or otherwise and it appears that the goods imported were exported as it is. The judgment therefore, does not advance the cause of the petitioner. Even the other judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not cover the issue which is at hand in the instant petition. The judgment therefore, does not advance the cause of the petitioner. Even the other judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not cover the issue which is at hand in the instant petition. 7.In the case of Khatiawar Industries Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court held that when Uncrushed salt is crushed in the factory, it is commercially a different article and Octroi was leviable on the uncrushed salt which was brought to the Octroi area. In the said judgment the Apex Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of (State of Travancore, Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Chashew Nut Factory)7, 1954 S.C.R. 53, wherein it was held that the raw cashew nuts were put through a process and new articles of commerce, namely cashew nut oil and edible cashew nut kernels were obtained. 8.In the case of Municipal Council, Damoh v. M/s. Vraj Lal Manilal and Co. and others, the Supreme Court held that the concept of 'manufacture' and 'manufacturing process' is that as a result of undergoing the process a distinct commercial commodity different from the raw material comes into existence. In the case of (Deccan Embroidery Manufacturing Co. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona)8, 1989(1) Bom.C.R. 455 , a Small Scale Industry was importing grey yarn of different types within the Corporation limits of Pune city from various places and after processing on the same yarn, the finished yarn was packed in the shape of bales and bundles and then marketed to the customers outside the limits of the said Corporation. This export to the outside parties was either directly or through various branches of the petitioner firm located at places like Mumbai, Hyderabad, Delhi and Calcutta. The petitioners were getting refund of 90% of the Octroi paid on the yarn on its importation under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Octroi Rules framed by the Corporation. However, the Corporation changed its stand from 1972 onwards and refused to give the refund on Octroi duty on the ground that the yarn has undergone a substantial change after its import and therefore, the petitioners had forfeited their right to refund of 90%. This Court referred to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court on the point of manufacture, manufacturing process and upheld the plea of the Municipal Corporation. This Court referred to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court on the point of manufacture, manufacturing process and upheld the plea of the Municipal Corporation. The following observations of this Court are important to note :- "The ratio in these observations indicate that to express the term 'manufacture' it is not as if that all these processes must be combined together and it is then only that there is the process of manufacture, but either of these processes which includes bleaching, would amount to manufacture, because it would answer the test laid down that it can go in the market in that distinguishable changed form. This is apparent because there is obvious difference between a coarse or a grey yarn and a bleached one and any consumer going to the market would, by even a naked look distinguish between the two commodities." 9.In the case at hand the petitioner is importing steel rods and wire and they are being processed in different operations namely pickling, threading, flattening and galvanising. The product which is exported is distinguishable in its appearance and size as compared to the one which is originally imported. The processes carried out are also described as cleaning, sizing and metalising and it cannot be accepted that these processes carried out at the factory of the petitioner at Aurangabad do not amount to an activity of manufacture. There is no dispute that the petitioner's factory is registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and it is carrying out manufacturing activities. We therefore, have no difficulty in holding that the material that is exported by the petitioner outside the Corporation limits is different from the material which is imported from the Bombay market and the said change is brought about as a result of the processes as stated hereinabove in the factory of the petitioner and thus the said exported goods do not come within the ambit of Rule 16(e) of the Octroi Rules. The proviso to Rule 16(e) does not apply to the instant case and therefore, the petitioner could not claim refund under Rule 18 of the Octroi Rules read with Standing Order No. 14. 10.For the above stated reasons, we hold that the challenge raised in the petition against the Municipal Corporation declining the refund of Octroi on the exported goods is unsustainable and the petition must therefore, fail. The petition is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. 10.For the above stated reasons, we hold that the challenge raised in the petition against the Municipal Corporation declining the refund of Octroi on the exported goods is unsustainable and the petition must therefore, fail. The petition is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed. -----