Neha Khullar Vs. Rakesh Khullar - 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.k. awasthy, j.1. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1994 in civil suit no. 33-a/92 passed by the 4th additional district judge, jabalpur, the appellant-non-applicant has preferred this appeal against the finding of dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.2. admittedly the facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised at jabalpur on 12th may, 1989 according to hindu rites and customs and they have a daughter from the wedlock.3. respondent/husband filed a petition on the allegation that the appellant/ wife insults and mentally tortures him by saying that her husband is lame and by refusing cohabitation. it is alleged that on 29.12,1989 the appellant/wife in the absence of the respondent took an amount of rs. 15,000/- and the ornaments of the respondent and left the house. that report in the police was lodged on 29.12.1989 in the police station, gorakhpur, jabalpur against the appellant/wife. it is pleaded that the character of the appellant/wife is doubtful and that she gave birth to a child although the respondent has not done the intercourse with her. it is further pleaded that the appellant/wife is living separately since 29.12.1989 without any reasonable cause.4. the appellant/wife denied that she insults or passes sarcastic remarks against her husband or she denies the cohabitation. it is pleaded that her husband is having regular cohabitation which has resulted in the delivery of a body. it is further denied that she took away the jewellery or rs. 15,000/- of the respondent and left the house in the absence of her husband.5. learned trial court has examined the applicant and his two witnesses namely, ayodhya prasad (a.w. 2) and madan gopal (a.w. 3). the appellant examined herself and one om prakash (n.a. w. 2). learned trial court has passed the impugned decree holding that the appellant wife is guilty of matrimonial offence of desertion and cruelty.6. the appellant has assailed the decree on the ground that the learned trial court has not properly evaluated the evidence and the findings are against the facts and law applicable to the case.7. rakesh khullar (a.w. 1) has stated that his wife tortured him by saying that he is handicapped and she used to deny the sexual relationship. rakesh khullar (a.w. 1) has further stated that on 29.12.1989 the appellant had left her matrimonial house and after repeated persuasion she has refused to resume the marital relations and come back to live with him, neha khullar (n.a.w. 1) in paragraph 7 of her cross-examination has stated that she wants to take divorce from her husband. she has further admitted that her husband is lame and less qualified than her. neha khullar (n.a.w. 1) has emphatically admitted that her husband is not fit for her. in view of the statement of the appellant neha khullar (n.a.w. 1) on oath that she does not want to live with her husband and he is not fit for her and that he is less educated and lame. i have no hesitation in believing the statement of the respondent/husband on oath that his wife tortures him by speaking insulting words that he is lame and that she has deserted him for more than 4 years. learned trial court has rightly assessed the evidence and held that the appellant is guilty of matrimonial offence of desertion and cruelty.8. the appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. parties to bear their own costs.