JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and its officer (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellants" against M/s. Bengal Iron Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondents") The appeal impugns a judgment and order dated 6.1.1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Greater Bombay in Municipal By the impugned judgment and order, the additional Chief Judge allowed the appellants appeal and set aside the levy of octroi at 4% ad-valorem on the disputed goods. He directed that Octroi be levied on the same goods at 2.5%. There was also a direction that the amount, if any, recovered in excess at 2.5% was to be refunded to the appellant therein. 2. The brief facts of the case were as under. a) The respondents were a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture, marketing and selling cast iron pipes and pipe fittings. They were required to import their goods into the octroi limits of Greater Bombay. That, from 1974 to November 1986 their goods, imported into Bombay were treated by the appellants "as Pipes" which fell under Item 47 of Schedule H appended to Bombay Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965. Initially the rate of octroi under this head was chargeable at 1.5% ad-valorem. Some time in December, 1987/Jan.1988 the appellants reclassified the items being imported by the respondent as falling under Item of the said Schedule H. This Item No.28 inter alia pertained to "Sanitary Fittings". Subsequently from 1.6.1989 by an amendment to Schedule H, the levy of Octroi under Item 47 was increased from 1.5% to 2.5% ad valorem. It appears that one such consignment was imported into Bombay through the Mulund Check Naka on 27.4.1993 and the Octroi was collected under a receipt dated 27.4.1993. This octroi was collected under Item-28 as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the collection of octroi of their goods under the head of Item-28 the respondents herein filed an appeal under Section-217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for the following reliefs. a) That this Hon’ble Court may pleased to declare that the goods imported by the appellants fall under Item 47 and 48 of Schedule H to the Bombay Municipal Corporation ( Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965? a) That this Hon’ble Court may pleased to declare that the goods imported by the appellants fall under Item 47 and 48 of Schedule H to the Bombay Municipal Corporation ( Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965? b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 27.4.1993 and all such similar orders, the particulars of which have been annexed hereto at Exh.D to the appeal thereby levying octroi under Item 28 of Schedule H to the said rules. 3. After evidence was led in the matter and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Additional Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes by the impugned order allowed the appellants appeal and set aside the levy of octroi at 4% directing levy of octroi at 2.5% and lastly directing recovery of the excess amount. 4. On behalf of the appellants it was sought to be argued that the impugned judgment and order was wrong on merits. It was contended that the goods being imported into Bombay were in the category of "Sanitary fittings". It was argued that even if these fittings were external to the bathroom and the W.C. areas, nevertheless they facilitated connection of such areas to the sanitary soak pit. It is also contended that these items were required to be filled by a Plumber. The contention was that the term "Sanitary Fittings" was a specialised term. The argument was that since there existed a specific item relating to Sanitary fittings under item 28 of Schedule-H, B.M.C. had corrected their earlier error of treating such item as pipes within the meaning of Item 47 of Schedule-H and had decided to charge them as goods covered by Item-28. 5. There are only two aspects of this matter and both are covered by the judgment of this court. The first question is whether pipe fittings can be included in the definition of the term "pipes" as occurring in Item 47. This questions now been set to rest. This question was dealt with by a Single Judge of this court while deciding Writ Petition No.520 of 1988 on 11.11.1992. Relying upon an Apex Court Judgment in the case of Bharat Forge and Press Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990(45) ELT 525 , it was concluded that pipe fittings do not cease to be pipes and tubes. Relying upon an Apex Court Judgment in the case of Bharat Forge and Press Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990(45) ELT 525 , it was concluded that pipe fittings do not cease to be pipes and tubes. They are only a species thereof. No doubt this judgment was carried in an appeal and in appeal the question of classification was kept open. However, the observations of the Apex Court in Bharat Forge and Press Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), still stand. These were to the following effect. "Thus, answer to this question would be that the term pipe fittings would be included in the term pipes and pipe fittings are only a species of the generatic item "Pipes". 5-A. The second question was that if the pipes/pipe fittings are in fact sanitary fittings then should they be classified as sanitary fittings or should they retain their classification as pipes. This question is also no longer resintegra. It was decided by the Division Bench of this court in the bunch of writ petitions headed by W.P. No.2355 of 1995 between Smt. Nupur Khandelwal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. In this regard the Division Bench of this court has held as under. "A pipe may be used for the purpose of sanitation but that by itself cannot change its description as "pipe" and convert it into "sanitary fitting". More legislation has specifically "iron and steel pipes" as distinct commodity under Item a separate and 47 for the purpose of octroi". 6. It was contended by the Advocate for the B.M.C. that till judgment of the Division Bench was passed exparte. That however, does not make it any less binding. He had taken time to inquire as to whether this judgment was challenged. The counsel on taking instructions of the officer present in court states that the same has not been challenged. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised by the appellants must fail. 7. The second contention on behalf of the B.M.C. is that in an appeal under Section 217 cannot be entertained and ought not to have been entertained by the Chief Judge if it was not brought within 15 days from the accrual of the complaint. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised by the appellants must fail. 7. The second contention on behalf of the B.M.C. is that in an appeal under Section 217 cannot be entertained and ought not to have been entertained by the Chief Judge if it was not brought within 15 days from the accrual of the complaint. It was contended that at the very highest the court could have granted prayer (b) since it pertained to an order dated 27.4.1993 but it could not grant any prayer pertaining to past collection as sought by prayer (a) to the appeal. There is considerable substance in this contention raised on behalf of the appellants. Section 217(2)(a) reads as follows. "But no such appeal shall be entertained by the said Chief Judge unless (a) it is brought within15 days after the accrual of the cause of the complaint". On a plain reading of this provision the Lower Court erred in granting all the reliefs which were sought. Prayer (a) and which pertained to a period prior to days of the accrual of the complaint was not legally permissible. In this regard, reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants on the judgment and order of a Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.86 of 1990 between The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and anr. Vs. M/s. Gwalior Oil Mills. In Para-20 of this judgment a Single Judge on the facts of the said case observed as under : "Thus, going by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, in the present case the cause of complaint for preferring an Appeal as under Section 217 of the said Act arose at the time when the octroi was demanded at the octroi naka and thus time of fifteen days mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section 2 of Section 217 began to run from the aforesaid dates of demand". 8. In my view, in an appeal under Section 217 of the Act, the relief cannot be granted in respect of demand made 15 days prior to lodging of the appeal. This being the case, the appeal must partly succeed. 9. It is confirmed that in respect of octroi demand dated 27.4.1993 and the subsequent octroi demands, ad valorem octroi on the goods which fit description "Sanitary fittings" which would include pipes and pipe fittings. This being the case, the appeal must partly succeed. 9. It is confirmed that in respect of octroi demand dated 27.4.1993 and the subsequent octroi demands, ad valorem octroi on the goods which fit description "Sanitary fittings" which would include pipes and pipe fittings. will be levied under Item 47 Schedule H to the Municipal Corporation (Octroi Rules) 1965 at the rate of 2.5% subject to any statutory amendment. 10) The directions for recovery of any excess collection made by or on behalf of the Corporation is quashed and set aside. It will however, be open for the respondents to pursue any remedy available to them in regard to seek refund according to law. If any such application is made, it will be decided on its own merits.