Sandhya and ors. Vs. Navi Mohammad 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..........rebuttal insofar as expense of rs. 100 per day by the deceased and there is no ground to calculate only for 200 days in a year, this expenditure must have been calculated for 300 days in a year, which are the normal working days of the insurance company. in our opinion, office expense and the amount of incentive distributed to the policyholders cannot be calculated as there is no evidence on record regarding this expense. thus, total expense at the rate of rs. 100 per day for 300 days in a year comes to rs. 30,000 per year. after deducting this amount from the admitted net income of the deceased as rs. 71,476, his income comes to rs. 41,476, which can be rounded up to rs. 42,000. after deducting 1/3rd expenditure on self from rs. 42,000, the amount would come to rs. 28,000 and after multiplying by 18, it will come to rs. 5,04,000, adding to it rs. 5,000 as loss of consortium, rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses and rs. 2,500 towards loss to estate; the total amount comes to rs. 5,13,500.3. insofar as the amount of interest is concerned, it is to be calculated at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application on the enhanced amount of rs. 96,524, including the interest as calculated by the tribunal on the remaining amount.4. the appeal is therefore partly allowed and it is directed that the appellant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, namely, sandhya, wife of the deceased, rajeet, kirti and munni devi are entitled to get total amount of compensation of rs. 5,13,500 and interest at the rate as indicated hereinabove. it is further directed that the enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application shall be paid in cash to the appellant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. regarding payment of the remaining amount, the order of the learned tribunal shall be followed.