Bhuri and ors. Vs. Omi and ors.

- section 2(f): [dipak misra, k.k. lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] service tax - packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act 1944? finance act 932 of 1994), section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - held, the first limb of the inclusive definition of the manufacture under section 2(f) of central excise act has a very wide connotation. as the definition clause lays down an inclusive facet, the term manufacture has to be construed in a natural and plain manner and would include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. keeping in view the context in which the term manufacture has been used, it would take in its fold incidental and ancillary process in the manufacture or finishing of any manufactured product. it does not leave any room for doubt that an allied process should be integral and inextricable part of manufacture of completeness and presentability of the manufactured product. section 65(76b) of finance act used the words but it does not include. thus it is a definition which has the inclusive as well as exclusive facet. by virtue of the same it may include certain things and exclude others. it is well settled principle of law that a definition is not to be read in isolation and has to read in context of phrase which it defines, releasing that function of a definition is to give precision and certainty to the word or phrase which would otherwise be vague and uncertain. regard being had to the exclusionary fact in the finance act, though a limited one it would exclude the manufacturing process as defined under section 2(f) of the 1944 act. keeping in view the aforesaid dictionary clauses and circulars issued by the c.b.e.c. it is quite luminescent that would manufacture has to be understood in a broader sense and not to be confined or restricted to the excisable product in the act. it would include all processes which amount to manufacture..........1860, compensation of rs. 12,20,000 was claimed, deceased was doing business, he was running a kirana shop and his income was claimed to be rs. 10,000 per month.3. the only question agitated in appeal is about quantum of compensation as such other facts are not being referred to. the tribunal has awarded compensation of rs. 1,40,000 to the claimants assessing the income of the deceased at rs. 15,000 per annum prescribed for non-earning member applying the multiplier of 13, the aforesaid compensation has been worked out inclusive of the customary amount. dissatisfied with the same, appeal has been preferred.4. i have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the evidence on record.5. the main question for consideration is about the income of deceased. no doubt about it that accounts were not placed on record, but murari, cw 1, son of deceased, has stated that the deceased used to run a kirana shop and used to look after the agriculture also. family was having 30-40 bighas of agricultural land, they were the members of a joint hindu family. kirana shop has been closed after death of prabhu dhakad while agriculture was being carried on by sons of deceased as stated by aforesaid witness. it was not appropriate for the tribunal to assess the income as provided for a non-earning member for an earning member. it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at rs. 3,500 per month, annual income, thus, comes to rs. 3,500 x 12 = rs. 42,000, making 1/3rd deduction towards the self expenditure of the deceased which amount he would have spent on himself had he been alive, loss of annual dependency comes to rs. 28,000, multiplier of 13 is applicable as the age of deceased was between 45-50 years. thus, capitalising the loss the amount comes to rs. 28,000 x 13 = rs. 3,64,000. further, a sum of rs. 40,000 is awarded to the claimants under the customary heads such as loss to estate, loss of expectancy of life and funeral expenses, inclusive of a sum of.....