Municipal Council Nagda and anr. Vs. Grasim Industries Limited - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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.....ordera.m. sapre, j.1. the decision rendered in this petition shall also govern disposal of other connected writ petitions being w.p. nos. 9549, 9550, 9551, 9552, 9553, 9555, 9556, 9557, 9558, 9559, 9560, 9561, 9562 and 9564 of 2003, as in all these writ petitions, common question is involved and they arise out of a common order.2. by filing this writ under article 227 of the constitution of india, the petitioner seeks to challenge the revisionary order, dated 25-06-2003 (annexure p-8), passed by additional district judge, khachrod in civil revision no. 9 of 2000.3. infact, in all these bunch of petitions, one common question is involved viz., whether appeal filed by the respondent under section 139 of the m.p. municipalities act against the resolution, dated 15-09-1998, passed by.....

Judgment:
ORDER

A.M. Sapre, J.

1. The decision rendered in this petition shall also govern disposal of other connected writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 9549, 9550, 9551, 9552, 9553, 9555, 9556, 9557, 9558, 9559, 9560, 9561, 9562 and 9564 of 2003, as in all these writ petitions, common question is involved and they arise out of a common order.

2. By filing this writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the revisionary order, dated 25-06-2003 (Annexure P-8), passed by Additional District Judge, Khachrod in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2000.

3. Infact, in all these bunch of petitions, one common question is involved viz., whether appeal filed by the respondent under Section 139 of the M.P. Municipalities Act against the resolution, dated 15-09-1998, passed by petitioner before the Civil Judge, is maintainable? If the view of the learned Civil Judge is that appeal in question is not maintainable, the view of the Revisionary Court (ADJ) is to its contrary i.e. maintainable. It is against this revisionary order, the petitioner (who is respondent in appeal) has come up in writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because in view of recent amendment made in Section 115 of C.P. Code w.e.f. 1-7-2002, the right to file the revision under Section 115 ibid is drastically curtailed.

4. Heard Shri VK. Jain, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel with Ku. Seema Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended for restoration of the order, passed by the learned Civil Judge holding, the appeal to be not maintainable, whereas the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent was for upholding of the impugned revisionary order holding, that the appeal is maintainable. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties have brought to my notice a recent decision of this Court (Full Bench) rendered on 28-08-2003 in the case of Sakhi Gopal Agrawal v. State, 2003 (4) M.P.H.T. 1 (FB)= 2003 (II) MPJR 406 and contended that the issue sought to be raised in this petition remains no longer resintegra and stands decided. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is so decided in petitioner's favour whereas the learned Counsel for respondent submits that it is so decided in favour of respondent.

6. It is not in dispute that the decision of Full Bench was rendered after the decision of Revisionary Court impugned herein and hence, the learned Revisionary Court had no occasion to examine the issue of maintainability of appeal in the light of law laid down and explained. In a situation like the one, either this Court has to decide the issue or direct the Revisionary Court to reexamine the issue afresh in the light of observations so made by the Full Bench in the case of Sakhi Gopal (supra), in so far as it relates to maintainability of appeal is concerned. In my view, I prefer to take recourse to later course for the reason, that Revisionary Court will have an opportunity to reexamine the issue in the light of law explained by Full Bench and then give a finding about the maintainability of appeal. Since, the Full Bench decision was not rendered and hence, the Revisionary Court had no occasion to examine the issue in that light. Secondary, both parties contended that the view taken by the Full Bench supports their respective contention. It is for this reason, it would be in the larger interest of parties that a finding on the issue can be invited afresh from the Revisionary Court before this Court embark upon its examination in its writ jurisdiction at a later stage.

7. I am, therefore, inclined to allow the writ and quash the impugned order, dated 25-6-2003 (Annexure P-8), passed by Additional District Judge, Khachrod in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2000. The case (revision) is remanded to Revisionary Court to decide all the revisions afresh in the light of what is observed supra, preferably within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties to appear before the Revisionary Court on 15-12-2003 to enable the Revisionary Court to decide the revisions.

C.C. within a week.