Tukaram Vs. Ramsingh 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. claimant is dissatisfied with what is awarded to him by the learned member of tribunal for the injuries that he sustained in an accident that occurred on 30.12.1997 with an offending vehicle. in all, he was awarded rs. 8,500/-. he wants more. the impugned award is dated 14.1.2000, passed by learned member, m.a.c.t., kukshi in claim case no. 38/98.2. having heard the counsel for appellant and having perused the impugned award and in particular para 17, i do not find any case for upturning the finding so recorded by the tribunal while declining to grant more compensation. in the opinion of tribunal, the evidence of dr. gupta (aw 2) does not show any disability that may have occurred to claimant as a result of injury. in order to claim compensation it is necessary to show percentage of disability suffered by the claimant. when claimant examined the doctor to prove the nature of injury in his leg, it was equally necessary for him to have proved percentage of disability. this not having been proved, the tribunal was justified in confining the award for rs. 8,500/-.3. no good ground having been noticed to admit the appeal, it is found to be devoid of substance and hence dismissed in limine.