Judgment A. H. JOSHI, J.:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is called for final disposal by consent. 2. Heard. 3. Respondent No.1 has issued a Circular dated 6th July, 2007 thereby notifying the price of cement per bag on the basis of which octroi shall be recovered on bags of cement at the time of entry in limit of Corporation. Different prices of cement bags manufactured by different Companies for different grades etc., have been notified. 4. Challenge raised in this petition is on the ground that the provisions contained in the City of Nagpur Corporation Act or in view of the Rules framed thereunder do not permit the respondent no.1 - Corporation to issue any Circular like one which is impugned. Moreover, the octroi is to be levied when the goods are imported on the basis of price declared in the Proforma Invoice. It is further urged that if at all the respondents disbelieve the price declared in the invoice, believing it to be under-invoiced, or otherwise, the procedure of dealing with such cases comes into picture. However, this eventuality cannot be believed to exist, and on such belief, the Corporation cannot issue a Notification declaring the prices for the purpose of levy of octroi unilaterally. 5. The respondent no. 1 has opposed the petition by filing an Affidavit-in-Reply, in addition, by oral submissions. Learned Advocate Mr. Kaptan submitted that the octroi has to be charged on the basis of cost price as declared by the manufacturer to the Central State Excise Department. In support of this submission, learned Advocate Mr. Kaptan has placed reliance on Explanation-II to Clause (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. ' In his second fold of submission, learned Advocate Mr. Kaptan has placed reliance on the power available to the Corporation under Clause (d) of Rule 10 of those Rules, which empowers the Corporation to proclaim the List of market rates. On these submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Kaptan justified issuance of impugned Notification. 6. The respondents' submissions, as advanced through the Return, have been countered by the petitioner by filing a Rejoinder. In the Rejoinder, what is averred is as follows: "2. This calculation and assessment of the respondents is perverse and not in accordance with the provisions of law and the factual position. Kaptan justified issuance of impugned Notification. 6. The respondents' submissions, as advanced through the Return, have been countered by the petitioner by filing a Rejoinder. In the Rejoinder, what is averred is as follows: "2. This calculation and assessment of the respondents is perverse and not in accordance with the provisions of law and the factual position. The maximum retail price of Rs.234-00 which is printed on the invoice includes the excise, education cess, secondary education cess and transportation charges. These amounts are not paid over and above the maximum retail price but are included in the maximum retail price of Rs.234-00. The amount which is paid as excise has to be calculated on the basis of the maximum retail price as per the notification of the excise department dated 3-5-2007. 3. Thus if the invoice at Annexure-B to the petition is seen, the maximum retail price per bag is stated as Rs.234.00. The invoice is of 340 bags. The excise duty which is paid is Rs.9547.20 which is 12% of the maximum retail price of 340 bags. Similarly, the education cess is 2% of this excise duty and the secondary education cess is 1 % of this excise duty. The total value of the goods however is Rs.7l740.00 which if divided by 340 bags gives the retail price as Rs.211.00 per unit. The present invoice is in respect of a stock transfer. In cases of direct sales to customers and institutions the actual selling price is much lower and it is rare that the petitioner directly sells the material at Rs.234. In any case by law the bag of cement which carries the maximum retail price of Rs.234 cannot be sold for a higher amount. The maximum retail price includes everything including all taxes and profits and charges of transportation." [quoted from pages 64 and 65 of the Writ Petition Paper-Book]. What is averred and quoted above is eloquent enough and does not need any further discussion. 7. No further reply or explanation, including denial or dispute as to what has been brought on record in the Rejoinder, is placed before the Court by respondent no.1 Corporation. 8. We have considered rival pleadings and oral submissions. What is averred and quoted above is eloquent enough and does not need any further discussion. 7. No further reply or explanation, including denial or dispute as to what has been brought on record in the Rejoinder, is placed before the Court by respondent no.1 Corporation. 8. We have considered rival pleadings and oral submissions. Analysis of submissions reveals as follows :[a] Explanation-II to Clause [a] of Rule 10 deals with the cases where the importer bringing the goods within the Corporation limits which attract octroi, imports those in a bonded warehouse where levy of custom or excise duty is deferred by the Department until the goods are released from the bond, the octroi duty on such goods, at the time of import, has to be charged on the entrance Naka "on the cost price of the goods plus incidental expenses" as notified to the Department by the importer. As it is seen, in the present case, on the basis of admitted facts, the petitioner is not an importer falling in this category. The petitioner is a purchaser of goods on the basis of invoice and has purchased the goods for the price paid which is represented in the invoice with a further declaration therein as to what shall be the maximum retail price which is to be considered to be the basis on which excise duty was paid. All these details are incorporated in the invoice which document is relied on by both the sides. 9. From above, it shall be clear that on the very face of it and on plain reading of and by applying any permutations and combinations, the defence of the Corporation justifying the levy on the basis of prices notified in the impugned Notification, is wholly untenable. 10. As regards submissions of the corporation opposing the petition based on the power to prepare the Price List, we find that it is not the case where the respondent Corporation, on facts of the case in this case or generally, arrived at a conclusion that the goods are imported by under-invoicing the price. The contingency or the situation when the List of Prices of Goods can be prepared which is provided for in Clause [d] of Rule 10 has not occurred in the present case. The contingency or the situation when the List of Prices of Goods can be prepared which is provided for in Clause [d] of Rule 10 has not occurred in the present case. Moreover, the Corporation has not come with a case that such a contingency has arisen, and that it has adopted the modalities and procedure prescribed in those Rules of involving assertions. The submissions of the Corporation that it has acted under the powers under Clause [d] of Rule 10 is also, thus, found to be devoid of any factual or legal foundation. 11. In above premises, we hold that the respondents have failed to justify impugned Circular being issued within the powers and authority of law, and. therefore, deserves to be quashed and we order the relief in terms of Prayer Clause [a]. 12. Both the parties have expressed a concern as to the dilemma which is created in the situation. The respondents claim that the Corporation should be free to charge octroi at least on MRP without prejudice to Corporation's powers under law. Petitioner agrees to pay octroi on the basis of Maximum Retail Price as notified in the Excise Invoice under protest and without prejudice to respective rights. 13. This judgment does not preclude the Corporation from adopting the procedure for preparation of cost price to meet the contingency contemplated by Clause [d] of Rule 10, if need arises. 14. Rule is made absolute in terms of Paras 9 to 11 above. We direct, in the circumstances, that parties shall bear costs on their own. Petition allowed.