Judgment :- This petition is filed by the Indian Oil Corporation challenging order dated 15.02.1994 passed in Revision Case No.GA/23/R of 1991 by Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur confirming the order dated 29.07.1991 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur in Case No.GA/3/A-Octroi of 1987. By both these orders, notice of demand dated 17.02.1987 issued by Octroi Superintendent asking the petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 1,28,462.50/- on account of octroi dues leviable on new empty gas cylinders brought within the Corporation limits of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary to decide the controversy involved in the petition are stated as under. By notification dated 21.02.1961, a cess called 'octroi duty' was imposed by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Government under clause (e) of Sub Section (1) of Section 114 read with Section 115 of the City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Said Act"). These rules were modified by Notification dated 16.05.1966 which was published in gazette of Government of Maharashtra and was brought into force on 01.06.1966. Under the said octroi rules, schedule of goods liable to octroi duty in the Nagpur corporation was prescribed. There was no specific item of Liquefied Petroleum Gas or cooking gas in the schedule but residuary entry 86 was in existence under which the Liquefied Petroleum Gas or cooking gas was made chargeable to octroi. These rules were subsequently modified by Notification dated 10.12.1979. In spite of that, there was no specific item included regarding L.P.G. or cooking gas, which was made chargeable to octroi duty. Hence, L.P.G. was made liable to charge of octroi duty under the residuary entry no.66. 3. By subsequent notification dated 21.09.1984, the octroi rules were again amended with effect from 01.01.1984 and entry No.25 was introduced in schedule as under:- "25. Petroleum products such as savasol oil, diesel oil, crude oil, mava-oil, machinery oil, refined caster oil, lubricating oils of all kinds, sporidle oil spindle coil, furnace oil grease, petroleum jelly, wax, grease, petroleum jelly, wax cooking gas (L.P.), all kinds of mineral oils, petrol and aviation spirit (I.C.A.) and other kinds of oils not provided elsewhere and all kinds of gas." Thereafter entry 69-(b) was also introduced, which is as under. "69 (a) ... "69 (a) ... (b) All articles and finished goods made of iron, steel, mild steel, cast iron, wrought iron, pig iron, such as hammer, pick axe, axe, pawada, kudli, sabbal, pipes and conduit pipes of all kinds of irons, old and new drums (empty), empty cylinders, empty tin dabba, iron tankers and takli, ghamela, barbed wire, iron baskets, iron shegadi, tawa, kadhai, structure materials and iron articles of all kinds of building, bolts, nuts, washers, rivets, and such other articles, wire nails hooks and stripes and all kinds of building fittings, iron materials, umbrella and umbrella filling and hardware fillings of all kinds." Thus, the aforesaid entries were brought into force with effect from 01.10.1984. By way of entry 25, cooking gas (LPG) was made chargeable to octroi duty and under entry 69 (b) empty cylinders were made chargeable to octroi duty. The respondent-Corporation, neither prior to 01.10.1984 nor subsequent to that date, demanded octroi from the petitioner on filled in L.P.G. cylinder imported within the octroi limit. However, for the first time, a notice of demand dated 14.02.1987 was issued to the petitioner demanding Rs. 1,23,462.50/- towards octroi on the new empty gas cylinders imported within the octroi limits, for the first time. 4. In response to this demand notice, which was issued under Section 155(1) of the said Act, the petitioner-Corporation submitted its reply taking a specific stand in para 3 of its reply which is reproduced below:- "3. In no case, empty L.P.G. Cylinders are given by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to the consumers even at the time of installation of the new connection. It is, therefore, obvious that only L.P.G. Filled cylinders, which is the property of Indian Oil Corporation, are brought by the distributors of Indian Oil Corporation within the octroi limits of distribution to consumers. Empty cylinders belonging to Indian Oil Corporation are not brought by the company or its distributors within the Octroi limits of Nagpur Corporation." Similarly, in para 9 of the said reply, following stand was taken. "9. Under Entry 69 (b) empty cylinders are goods liable to octroi duty if brought in the octroi limits of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur for sale, consumption or use. "9. Under Entry 69 (b) empty cylinders are goods liable to octroi duty if brought in the octroi limits of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur for sale, consumption or use. Since Indian Oil Corporation Limited is not bringing any empty cylinders, much less for sale, consumption or use, within the octroi limits of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Entry 69 (b) is not attracted." 5. The Additional Deputy Municipal Commissioner, who dealt with the proceedings relating to notice of demand, passed an order on 29.07.1991 holding that for each first supplied cylinder or subsequent new cylinder the company charges and collects Rs. 500/- under the head 'deposit' and the Corporation is liable to pay octroi at 2% ad valorem. It was further held that the petitioner has not produced any documentary proof to prove that no octroi duty is charged at Pune, Mumbai, Aurangabad or other cities of Maharashtra and the base of exemption of cylinders from octroi duty given by these City Corporations. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.07.1991, the petitioner preferred revision petition under sub Section (2) of Section 387 of the said Act, which was numbered as Revision Application No.GA/23/R of 1991 before Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. The learned Commissioner decided the said revision by his order dated 15.02.1994. It was held that new empty gas cylinders were not exempted from payment of octroi duty and hence they are very much chargeable to octroi. Although, learned Commissioner has observed that the only test available as to whether a commodity or goods is leviable to octroi duty or not is; as to whether the same is brought within the jurisdiction of Nagpur Municipal Corporation for the purposes of sell, consumption and use. It was held that cylinders are used for filling the gas before supply to the consumer and unless this is done, the gas cannot be supplied to anyone and this shows that cylinders have specific use. Unless the cylinders are filled in, the gas contained in the same cannot be supplied to the consumers. It has further been held that new empty gas cylinders first supplied to the consumers by the petitioner through the distributors is an item chargeable to octroi duty since it is having a specific use. authorities, under the respondent-Corporation, the present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It has further been held that new empty gas cylinders first supplied to the consumers by the petitioner through the distributors is an item chargeable to octroi duty since it is having a specific use. authorities, under the respondent-Corporation, the present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Mr. Harish Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that petitioner-Corporation has never brought within the octroi limits of Municipal Corporation the empty gas cylinders. There is no finding recorded by any of the authorities under the Corporation that the petitioner-Corporation has brought within the octroi limits the empty gas cylinders. According to him, the stand of the petitioner-Corporation throughout, as is reproduced in earlier para, was that the filled in liquefied Petroleum Gas cylinders were brought at the point of entry in the octroi limits. As per entry No.25 reproduced above, the cooking gas, which was filled in the cylinder, was made chargeable to octroi and the same has been paid by the petitioner-Corporation. He further submitted that once octroi is paid on liquefied Petroleum Gas contained in the cylinder then separate octroi duty is not leviable on the cylinders, which are used for carrying the liquefied Petroleum Gas or on filled in L.P.G. cylinders. According to him, what entry 69 (b) contemplates is import of empty gas cylinders and in the absence of there being any finding recorded by the authorities under the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has imported empty gas cylinders within the octroi limits, the notice of demand served was illegal. 9. Per contra, Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for respondent-Corporation, has supported the orders passed by the authorities under the respondent-Municipal Corporation. He has urged that Rule 3 of the Octroi Rules framed by the Corporation deals with the goods, which are not liable to payment of octroi and entry No.34 therein deals with the old and used empty gas cylinders. According to him, entry No.69(b), which is reproduced above, deals with empty gas cylinders and it has to be widely construed to include new gas cylinders used for filling in gas for the first time and brought as such within octroi limits. According to him, such cylinders are neither the old nor used empty gas cylinders and since not exempted under entry No.34, are chargeable to octroi duty. According to him, such cylinders are neither the old nor used empty gas cylinders and since not exempted under entry No.34, are chargeable to octroi duty. He further submits that the Corporation is charging octroi only on the said cylinders, which are used for the first time i.e. new L.P.G. cylinder brought within the octroi limits for the first time and its subsequent use is not made chargeable to octroi. According to him, the authorities under the Corporation were justified in levying the octroi duty on the new gas cylinders, which are imported within the octroi limit, for the first time, whether they are filled in or empty. 10. The undisputed factual position is that till 01.01.1984 and subsequent thereto till issuance of demand notice dated 17.02.1987 by Corporation for payment of octroi, the octroi was not levied on the filled in cylinders, which were imported within the octroi limits. It is also not in dispute that prior to 01.10.1984 and subsequent thereto octroi was levied on L.P.G., which was contained in the cylinders, and the petitioner has been paying the same regularly in terms of entry no.25. There is no finding recorded by any of the authorities under the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner-Corporation has been bringing within the octroi limits the empty gas cylinders for sell, consumption and use. What entry No.69(b) contemplates is the levy of octroi on empty cylinders. The case of petitioner-Corporation has been throughout, as reproduced earlier, that the empty cylinders belonging to the petitioner are not brought within the limits of Nagpur Municipal Corporation either for supply to the consumers or to the distributors for sale, consumption or use. Hence, entry No.69 (b) is not at all attracted. 11. The contention of respondent-Municipal Corporation that entry 69 (b) relating to empty gas cylinders should be widely construed so as to include the new filled in gas cylinders brought within the limits of Municipal area for the first time, cannot be accepted. The entry "empty cylinder" may consist of two types of cylinders; (i) old and used empty gas cylinders, and (ii) new empty gas cylinders to be filled in for the first time. The old and used empty gas cylinders, as pointed out earlier, are exempted from octroi duty under entry No.34. The entry "empty cylinder" may consist of two types of cylinders; (i) old and used empty gas cylinders, and (ii) new empty gas cylinders to be filled in for the first time. The old and used empty gas cylinders, as pointed out earlier, are exempted from octroi duty under entry No.34. New empty gas cylinders to be filled in for the first time are not exempted either under entry No.34 or under any other entry, relating to exemption. Hence, it can be construed that entry No.69(b), regarding empty cylinders, would include new empty gas cylinders to be filled in for the first time, which may be an item chargeable to octroi duty. However, that by itself is not enough to attract the octroi duty. What more is required to be seen is, the taxable event, the nature and type of products/goods, which are brought at the point of entry, to attract the octroi duty. Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has rightly relied upon decision of the apex Court in Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly vs. State of U.P. And others; AIR 1988 S.C. 850 , in which it has been laid down that the taxable event for the imposition of octroi is the entry and the nature and type of the goods at the point of entry. What is being brought by the petitioner at the point of entry is the new gas cylinder filled in for the first time, which becomes a taxable event in the present case and not the new empty gas cylinders to be filled in for the first time. Thus, there is a distinction. The new gas cylinder filled in for the first time and brought as such at the point of entry, is an independent and distinct product, which may become chargeable to octroi duty, only in the event of such product being included in the schedule of items chargeable to octroi duty. The product i.e. new gas cylinders filled in, for the first time, has not been included in the schedule of items chargeable to octroi duty and hence the contention of Mr. Kasat cannot be accepted. 12. In the result, the instant writ petition succeeds. The product i.e. new gas cylinders filled in, for the first time, has not been included in the schedule of items chargeable to octroi duty and hence the contention of Mr. Kasat cannot be accepted. 12. In the result, the instant writ petition succeeds. The order dated 15.02.1994 along with notice dated 17.02.1987 issued by the respondent-Corporation are quashed and set aside and it is held that the new gas cylinders filled in for the first time, brought as such, at the point of entry within the octroi limits, are not chargeable to octroi duty either under entry No.25 or entry No.69 (b) of the Rules framed by the Corporation. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.