CHAGLA C. J. :

Although the ultimate question that we have to decide in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass, it raises certain questions of considerable public importance. The appellants before us are a company registered in India and they deal in antibiotics, Pharmaceuticals and foods, and for the purpose of their business they have been importing into India since about February 1951 large quantities from, Glaxo Laboratories Ltd., U. K. of Vitamin B. 12 in bulk of the value of several lakhs of rupees every year. The appellant company admittedly is a subsidiary company of the English company. From February 1951 to May 1955 the appellants entered in their bill of entry for the purpose of customs duty the invoice value of the goods. Between June 1955 to May 1956 they showed the real value of the goods as the wholesale price of the goods in the United Kingdom, and after May 1956 they reverted to their original practice of showing the invoice value. In this appeal we are concerned in all with ]0 consignments. The first six consignments arrived in India in April 1956 and September 1956 and the value of these consignments was shown in the bill of entry as £. 72-3-9 per gram. This was the invoice price. The Customs authority did not accept the invoice value and assessed these six consignments on the basis of the price of £. 87-10-0 per gram and levied assessment on that basis. Thereupon the appellants made applications for refund claiming the difference between £. 87-10-0 per gram and £ 72-3-9 per gram. The Customs authority on its part issued what has been described as short levy notices. These notices were in respect of liability to pay a larger amount and; it was stated in these short levy notices that pending finalisation of the investigation an amount was mentioned as an anticipated less charge. After the six consignments had arrived, the price of vitamin B. 12 was reduced from £. 72-3-9 to £65-2-3. The 7th consignment arrived in November 1958, 8-12-1956 and 9-2-1957, and the appellants prepared their bill of entry with regard to these three consignments on the basis of the invoice price. In respect of these three consignments short levy notices were issued by the Customs authority on the basis that the appellants were liable to pay 12 1/2 per cent in addition to the invoice price. The goods were passed on the basis of the amount entered in the bill of entry by the appellants, but the assessment was not accepted by the Customs authority, and therefore the short levy notices were issued. With regard to the first six consignments prior to the date of the petition which the appellants filed, the short levy notices were with-

drawn and as a matter of fact a certain amount was refunded by the Customs authority because it was found that even on the basis that they had adopted the amount at which the goods had been assessed was not the prior amount. With regard to the short levy notices in respect of consignments 7, 8 and 9, they were followed up by a demand notice which called upon the appellants to pay the amount in respect of which the short levy notices were issued The 10th consignment with which we are concerned is the consignment of 10-3-1957 and, without going into unnecessary details, as far as this consignment was concerned the final order of assessment was made by the Collector himself on 15-4-1957 and the assessment of this consignment was also made on the basis that the appellants were liable to pay 12 1/2 per cent more than the invoice value. The invoice value which was accepted for the purpose, as we shall presently point out, was the invoice of Messrs. Voltas Ltd. This petition was filed challenging the order of assessment with regard to the six consignments and for a direction that the refund application made by the appellants should be disposed of by the Customs authority. With regard to the 7th, 8th and 9th consignments, the challenge was made against the short levy notices which were served upon the appel