( 1 ) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited aggrieved by rejection of their application filed under section 55 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") for refund of alleged excess wharfage charges paid on steel coils and uncoated pipes under mistake,to the respondent Kandla Port Trust. The sole ground of rejection of the refund claim is that it is barred by limitation being beyond the prescribed period of six months under section 55 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that in accordance with notification dated 26. 6. 1975 issued by the Kandla Port Trust under section 48 of the Act read with section 52 , wharfage at the rate of Rs. 12. 00 per 1000 Kgs. under Entry 44 (i)- Metal and Metal products, not otherwise specified was required to be charged from the petitioner. But excess wharfage at the rate of Rs. 21. 60 per 1000 Kgs. under Entry 75 `unspecified items heavy lifts each weighing 3 tons or above, has been charged from it. The petitioners further case is that excess wharfage was paid under mistake for various periods. At the time of hearing of these petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner handed over to us a consolidated statement of alleged excess wharfage paid to the Kandla Port Trust for various periods in these the writ petitions. The consolidated statement prepared petitionwise and periodwise is taken as a part of record of this case. In SCA No. 771/85, for the period between 27. 9. 1981 and 11. 4. 1983, a sum of Rs. 6, 99,588. 66 has been claimed as refund. In SCA No. 40/1986, for the period from 25. 2. 1985 to 7. 7. 1985, a total sum of Rs. 8,25,315. 02 has been claimed. In SCA No. 3994/86, for the period 24. 3. 1986 to 14. 10. 1985, a sum of Rs. 6,56,172. 20 has been claimed towards refund. In SCA No. 3779/1987, for the period from 8. 5. 1986 to 25. 3. 1987, a sum of Rs. 5,02,176. 20 has been claimed and in SCA No. 7939/1988, for the period 24. 4. 1987 to 17. 2. 1988, a sum of Rs. 6,83,206. 10 has been claimed towards refund.

( 3 ) FOR deciding the sustainability of the refund claims, relevant entries in various notifications fixing rates of wharfage are required to be examined. In the first notification dated 26. 6. 1975, relevant Entries 44 and 75 read as under :"75. Unspecified items" (excluding ammunition and explosives) (i) Heavy lifts each weighing 3 tonnes or above. 1000 Kgs. 21. 60 (ii) Non-heavy lifts each weighing less than 3 tonnes. 1000 Kgs. 18. 00". --

( 4 ) THE contention advanced on the basis of the above Entries 44 and 75 by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the steel coils for the purpose of wharfage are covered by Entry 44 (i) under the description `metal and metal products not otherwise specified in any of the other Entries. Steel coils being covered by Entry 44 (i) of the notification, wharfage cannot be charged under Entry 75 under the description `unspecified items- heavy lifts,etc.

( 5 ) THE contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner prima facie appears to be correct. Entry 44 (i) read as a whole, clearly brings out that if metal and metal products are covered by sub-entry (i) of Entry 44, and as clearly stated in that Entry `not otherwise specified in any other Entries, wharfage can be charged on the metal products under that Entry alone. Entry 75 under the description `unspecified items,with sub-entries (i) and (ii) thereunder, `heavy lifts each weighing 3 tons or above and non-heavy lifts each weighing less than 3 tons would apply to items not covered by Entry 44- `metal and metal products. This was the clear position with regard to charging of wharfage so long as notification dated 26. 6. 1975 was in force.

( 6 ) NOTIFICATION dated 26. 6. 1975 was amended with effect from 10. 5. 1984 and a separate Entry 45 was introduced for metal and metal products describing various categories of metal products and with different rates prescribed per 1000 Kgs. The