Shriram and ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and ors. - 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 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. in the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. this is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. if the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of section 2(f) of central excise act, 1944. as per the m.p. country spirits rules as well as clause 6 of the tender conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2 central excise act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in section 65(76b) of the finance act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by central board of excise and customs.a.m. sapre, j.1. this is an appeal filed by the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, against an award dated 1.2.2006, passed by learned tenth additional member, motor accidents claims tribunal, indore in claim case no. 41 of 2004. by impugned award, the tribunal has awarded a total sum of rs. 1,97,500 with interest to the claimants for the death of one kiran, who died in a vehicular accident. according to claimants, the compensation awarded is on a lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. it is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. so the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the tribunal on facts/evidence is made out in the compensation awarded and if so, to what extent2. heard mr. sameer verma, learned counsel for the appellant and mr. milind phadke, learned counsel for respondent insurance company.3. it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. it is for the reason that all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimant by the tribunal. secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or the insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. in this view of the matter, we do not wish to burden our judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.4. it is a death case. on 11.6.2004 kiran, a married woman, aged around 32 years, resident of indore died in vehicular accident. she was said to be working as field worker in indore city. it is this incident which gave rise to filing of claim petition by her legal representatives (appellants herein) under section 166 of the act against the respondents, who are owner, driver and insurance company of offending vehicle, claiming compensation for the death of kiran. so far as owner and driver (non-applicant nos. 1 and 2) were concerned, they remained ex parte, whereas the claim was contested by only insurance company (non-applicant no. 3). parties adduced evidence. by impugned award, the tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of rs. 1,97,500 by way of compensation. it was held that the deceased was earning rs. 15,000 yearly, i.e., notional income prescribed under the schedule. applying the multiplier of 17 and further awarding a sum of rs. 44,500 under conventional heads as also towards medical expenditure incurred in saving her, a total sum of rs. 1,97,500 were awarded. it is this determination which is impugned in this appeal by the claimants contending that it be suitably enhanced.5. having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part.6. we have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties on the question of income of kiran, i.e., deceased. having gone through the same, we find that there is evidence adduced by the claimant to prove that she was earning rs. 3,500 per month by doing field work for the institute called 'vishwas samajik vikas kendra (mann)'. it is proved by exh. p51 as also by pw 3, jawala prasad. there is nothing to disbelieve this oral and documentary evidence because no rebuttal evidence was adduced by insurance company. we, therefore, hold on the basis of exh. p51 and the evidence of jawala prasad, who has proved this certificate on behalf of the institute that deceased was earning rs. 3,500 as her monthly salary.7. in this way deducting 1/3rd and some more, she being a lady, we get a sum of rs. 2,000 per month. so we get a sum of rs. 2,000 x 12 = rs. 24,000. to this we add rs. 24,000 x 17 = rs. 4,08,000 rounded off to rs. 4,00,000. to this we add a sum of rs. 44,500 already awarded by the tribunal which in our opinion is just and proper. in this way, we get a sum of rs. 4,00,000 + rs. 44,500 = rs. 4,44,500 by way of compensation.8. in other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of rs. 4,44,500 by way of compensation for the death of kiran.9. the compensation awarded to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the supreme court in these types of cases. indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. it is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation.10. learned counsel for the appellants has cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. we have gone through these authorities. in our opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation.11. in this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. the enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization. all other findings are upheld being not under challenge.counsel's fee rs. 1,500, if certified.