Sabir Vs. Ramesh

- 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..........the findings recorded by the claims tribunal sabirkhan was working as helper on the mpsrtc bus and plied the said bus unauthorisedly on highway at midnight and dashed with the truck. as per the findings recorded in para 11 appellant sabirkhan was solely responsible for causing the accident but the tribunal has granted rs. 30,000/- and thereafter on the principle of contributory negligence awarded rs. 15,102/- to the applicant.3. looking to the evidence and the facts and circumstances on record this is not a fit case for enhancement of compensation to the applicant because the accident took place due to the negligence of appellant sabirkhan himself, therefore, the tribunal has rightly concluded the matter that the applicant is only entitled for 50% of the total claim. i do not find any ground for enhancement of any compensation.4. the tribunal has not awarded the interest on the claim amount from the date of the application and has only awarded from the date of the award dated 28.4.1993. as per the normal practice in the accident claim cases interest should be awarded from the date of application and not from the date of order unless otherwise directed in the peculiar circumstances of the case. therefore, on this limited question this appeal is allowed and it is directed that the aforesaid amount of claim of rs. 15,102/- shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application i.e., 29.9.1992 till its final payment.5. with the aforesaid observation this appeal is partly allowed and the award shall, accordingly, be treated as modified to the extent indicated above. the respondent insurance company shall deposit the balance amount of interest within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. no order as to cost. c.c. in 15 days.