Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has imported diesel generator sets within the Municipal limits of Gulabpura during the period in question. At the entry point, octroi was paid and later on as per the exemption notification, refund was claimed. The application for refund has not been decided. 2. The fact that the diesel generator sets were brought within the Municipal limits of Gulabpura is not in dispute. In the first instance, the petitioner has received one diesel generator set from Czechoslovakia on 23.09.1991. Despite exemption, on demand raised by the Municipality, the petitioner had deposited octroi duty on 12th December, 1991. The petitioner claimed exemption from the payment of octroi duty in view of the Notification dated 10th February, 1981 issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 107(5) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 exempting import of power generating sets by the industries established within the local limits of the Municipalities and exempted the import of such generator sets brought within the local limits from the payment of the octroi duty leviable under Section 104 of the Act of 1959. However, it was not accepted at the check post and the petitioner paid the octroi duty under protest at the rate of 2% ad valorem on 12.1991 and lodged the claim for refund of the same. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased another power generating set from M/s. Batltiboi & Co. Ltd. Branch Jaipur and the same was received within Municipal limits of Gulabpura directly from the manufacturer at Pondhichery. The petitioner, on being insisted, paid the octroi duty amounting to Rs. 70,000/- at the rate of 2% ad valorem on 06.04.1992 and by letter dated 07.04.1992 refund was claimed. In between reminders were also sent from time to time to decide the case. The same having not been decided, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4092/1993 was filed. 4. In reply to the writ petition, respondents have taken two pleas, firstly, that the application for refund of octroi has been filed by the petitioner after expiry of the time limit and secondly, the Rate Notification dated 28.09.1984 has come into force after the Exemption Notification dated 10th February, 1981, therefore, the exemption notification automatically lapsed. 5. These two contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. 5. These two contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. The preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents have also not been countenanced by the learned Single Judge. The other objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents was not sustained by the learned Judge by finding that the rate notification did not result in lapse of the exemption notification because both were issued in exercise of different powers. 6. However, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the word import in the Notification dated 10th February, 1981 means import from outside the geographical territories of the country and goods which have been brought within Municipality from a place within India cannot be considered and benefit of exemption cannot be extended. Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed by directing the respondents to refund Rs. 70,000/-of octroi duty deposited by the petitioner on the power generating set imported from Czechoslovakia but the refund claim in respect of generator received from Pondhichery in April, 1992 was rejected. The interpretation to expression import in the context of levy of octroi, as put by the learned Single Judge was not even the case of respondents. 7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment dated 8th July, 2002 this appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. Municipal Board, Gulabpura has not preferred any appeal. 8. The octroi duty is leviable in exercise of powers to enact law by the State Legislation in terms of subject matter referred to in Entry 52 of the II List of Schedule VII of the Constitution which inter alia provides tax on the entry of goods into a definite local area for consumption, use or sale thereof . It is a tax to be levied on entry of goods within the local area and it has no connection with entry of goods within the Indian Territory form outside. The tax is commonly known as Octroi levied on the goods brought into local limits of a particular area for consumption, use and sale. The local area has been interpreted in the context of the State Legislative power, that the expression means an area administered by a local body like a Municipality, a district board, a local board and a Panchayat or the like. The local area has been interpreted in the context of the State Legislative power, that the expression means an area administered by a local body like a Municipality, a district board, a local board and a Panchayat or the like. Therefore, the term import in the context of levy of duty of octroi on the entry of goods for the purposes of consumption, use or sale therein, does not refer to the meaning of import assigned in the context of bringing the foreign goods within the territories of nation. This is in contrast of duties of customs on the act of importation and exportation of goods within or outside the country. In view thereof , we are of the opinion, that the interpretation of the word import ( ) by the learned Single Judge divorced from its context of import within the local limits of Municipality is erroneous and cannot be accepted. 9. The petitioner-appellant is entitled to refund of both the amounts claimed by him in respect of diesel generation sets imported by him, whether form Czechoslovakia, a foreign country or from within the country from Pondhichery. The test of import is bringing in local area, entry into which attracts levy of octroi duty under Section 102 of Municipality Act, 1959. 10. We are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that notifying of rate of octroi duty leviable on entry of goods within the local area issued under Section 104 does not ipso facto results in superseding the notification of exemption issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 107 of the Act of 1959 which is issued on consideration of public interest. 11. The Exemption Notification is a concession from levy of duty of octroi on goods. Unless there is a levy, there cannot be an exemption. Therefore, issuance of exemption notification pre-supposes that for exemption, the tax is exigible on the subject for which the law has been enacted. It is only to avoid the incidents of tax which otherwise ex hypothesi arise on happening of taxing event, that the State Government may in public interest notify that such incident of tax will not arise on happening of taxing events. It is only to avoid the incidents of tax which otherwise ex hypothesi arise on happening of taxing event, that the State Government may in public interest notify that such incident of tax will not arise on happening of taxing events. Notifying the rates is for the purpose of determining the quantum of tax that may arise on happening of taxing events and it has nothing to do with exemption granted by the State in public interest in respect of a transaction which otherwise invites levy of duty. If the exemption certificate is withdrawn, the import of the goods entering into local limits of any particular area shall invite levy of duty on the rate which has been in force at the time on the importation of goods within the local limits. In fact this is not even disputed by the respondents. As noticed no challenge has been made by the respondents to principle applied by the learned Single Judge. 12. Therefore, the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Revenue on import of goods and about liability to exemption has rightly been not sustained by the learned Single Judge. 13. The preliminary objections raised by the respondents is also without any substance. The respondents in the preliminary objections has relied on Sub-rule (7) of Rule 14. However, the present controversy is squarely governed by Sub-rule (8) of Rule 14 which reads as under:- "14(8) In case where the State Government have, under Sub-section (5) of Section 107 of the Act, exempted any class of goods from payment of octroi subject to the production of certificate from concerned authorities and the person bringing such goods does not produce the requisite certificate at the time of entry of the goods within Municipal limits, he shall have to forthwith deposit such amount as is equivalent to the amount of octroi leviable on such goods: Provided that the amount so deposited shall be refunded to the payee if he makes an application within a period of 2 months form the date of such deposit, along with the aforesaid certificate." 14. While Sub-rule (7) of Rule 14 deals with the error, mistake that has occurred in calculation of the amount, so charged, in excess, such excess amount charged can be refunded after verification of the correctness of the amount, on the application of the payee within 30 days. While Sub-rule (7) of Rule 14 deals with the error, mistake that has occurred in calculation of the amount, so charged, in excess, such excess amount charged can be refunded after verification of the correctness of the amount, on the application of the payee within 30 days. For cases falling for determination of exemption granted under Sub-section (5) of Section 107 of the Act, Sub-rule (8) makes specific provisions. In such cases if the requisite certificate is not produced, the person importing goods has to deposit the amount of duty on the value of goods as is equivalent to the octroi leviable on such goods and then he can claim refund of such deposit by making an application within 2 months form the date of deposit. In fact, in the present case, the petitioner has lodged application for refund of octroi duty paid by him on goods imported within the local limits of Municipal Board, Gulabpura, which were exempted form duty, which fact too is not in dispute, but the same has not been decided by the authorities. 15. We may notice here that so far refund of octroi duty deposited by the petitioner in respect of diesel generator set imported from Czechoslovakia, the same has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. No appeal against that has been preferred by the Municipal Board and the same has become final. Thus, the principle of law about continuance of exemption on import of diesel generator set stands undisputed. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the Judgment under appeal to the extent it rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund of octroi duty deposited by him @ 2% ad valorem, amounting to Rs. 57,160.95, charged on the value of import of generator set from Pondichery within the local limits of Municipal Board, Gulabpura. The writ petition is thus allowed in toto. The respondents shall now refund the amount of octroi duty amounting to Rs. 57,160.95 deposited by the petitioner in respect of diesel generator set imported from Pondichery. If the refund is not made within two months, the respondents shall pay interest @ 9% from the date of filing of writ petition. 17. No costs.