Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.
1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee can be said to be mainly engaged in the business of processing of goods within the meaning of the definition of an industrial company under s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1976 ?'
2. The only business of the assessee in this case is printing manufacturers' names on pharmaceutical capsules. The question is whether the above activity amounts to processing of goods within the meaning of the definition of 'industrial company' as contained in s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1976. The Tribunal has held that the activity of printing manufacturers' names on pharmaceutical capsules amounts to processing of goods and the company engaged in the above activity can be termed an 'industrial company' within the meaning of s. 2 of the Finance Act.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. 'Industrial company' as defined in cl. (c) of sub-s. (9) of s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1976, so far as relevant, reads :
'(c) 'industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining.'
4. It is clear from the above definition that a company would be an industrial company if it is mainly engaged in the business of manufacture or processing of goods. The question that arises for consideration is whether the business of printing manufacturers' names on pharmaceutical capsules can be regarded as business of 'manufacture or processing of goods.'
5. On a careful perusal of the definition of 'industrial company' and the context and setting in which the expression 'manufacture or processing of goods' appears, we are of the clear opinion that printing of manufacturers' names on pharmaceutical capsules cannot be regarded as the business of processing goods within the meaning of cl. (c) of sub-s. (9) of s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1976, and a company engaged in such activity cannot be regarded as an 'industrial company'. In our view, by printing of manufacturers' names, the pharmaceutical capsules cannot be regarded as processed. In fact, the pharmaceutical capsules do not undergo any 'process' whatsoever in the course of printing of the manufacturers' name thereon. The capsules remain in the same condition. There is no alteration in the nature and character thereof. Moreover, the expression 'processing' appears in the definition of 'industrial company' with the expression 'manufacture'. The full expression is 'engaged in the business of manufacture or processing of goods'. The expression 'processing' has not been defined. It is, therefore, to be interpreted in a practical and workable manner in the context and setting in which it appears. That can be done by applying the doctrine of noscitur a sociis by reference to the words, phrases or expressions associated with it, which in the instant case is 'manufacture'. So construed, for the purpose of the definition of 'industrial company', one can be said to be engaged in the business of processing of goods only if as a result of the process undertaken by him, there is some alteration in the nature or character of the goods.
6. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.