Sukhlal Vs. Succhasingh and anr.

- 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..........a sum of rs. 3,000 towards loss of income and rs. 2,000 was awarded towards special diet. this is how a total sum of rs. 65,000 was awarded. it is this determination which is sought to be challenged by the claimant in this appeal, contending, inter alia, that the same has been awarded on lower side.4. we have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties and especially in respect of the injury sustained by claimant and the medical expenses incurred. the doctor has certified disability suffered to the extent of 40 per cent in the leg, because claimant had suffered fracture in the leg. taking in account the fact that the claimant was required to undergo medical treatment for a long time and also taking into account the extent of disability suffered by claimant, in our opinion, a sum of rs. 1,00,000 as lump sum would be total compensation which can be required to be a reasonable, adequate and proper compensation payable to the claimant, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. we have arrived at this figure after taking into account all material factors required for the purpose of determining the compensation in injury cases.5. accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. compensation is increased by way of enhancement from rs. 65,000 to rs. 1,00,000. the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of application till realisation. all other findings, such as, the nature of accident, extent of liability, etc., are not under challenge, hence are upheld. counsel's fee rs. 1,500, if certified.