Bta Cellcom Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer-cum-additional Tehsildar 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.....ordera.m. sapre, j.1. in substance, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that they have questioned the legality and validity of the assessment orders passed by the assessing authorities under the entry tax act in revision/appeal as provided under the act and has also applied for stay of recovery of the impugned demand pending appeal/revision. yet the authorities are insisting upon the petitioner to satisfy the demand without either passing any orders on the stay or hearing the matter on merits. it is also contended that even penalty orders have been passed and which are given effect to by taking recourse to coercive proceedings against the petitioner for realisation of dues. it is also contended that application made by the petitioner to commissioner for stay of the recovery proceedings has not yielded any results. it is further contended that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case on legal issues on merits but the same is not being heard to get rid of the demand impugned in the appeal/revision. it is with this background, the petitioner is in writ to seek appropriate writ/order.2. heard shri p.m. choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.3. in a case of this nature, it is the duty of the appellate/revisionary authorities, who are seized of the matter to decide the stay application on priority basis before the appeal/revision is decided on merits. indeed, this is the objective of stay when asked for. every aggrieved who has filed an appeal/revision as the case may be has a right under the law to ask for stay pending his/their case. it is for the appellate authority/revisionary authority to decide whether a case for stay is made out and if so, on what terms and conditions the same should be granted, or on what ground it should be rejected. in either case, the authorities must always ensure deciding of stay matter expeditiously and in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order after granting an adequate opportunity to an aggrieved.4. this.....