Judgment :- Aravind Kumar, J. The revenue is in appeal questioning the legality of the order passed by CESTAT in STA No.18/2003, by final order 12/2004 dated 27-4-2004 wherein the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) came to be allowed. 2. The undisputed facts leading to this appeal are: That the assessee was registered under the category of clearing and forwarding agent (C & F agent for short) under the service tax by their letter dated 21-9-2001 they intended to surrender their registration Certificate under the service tax on the premise that their activities did not fall within the purview of the category of C & F agent and accordingly they sought for surrender of the Certificate and issuance of a fresh registration. The jurisdictional authority on affording a personal hearing to the assessee and on consideration of objections filed came to a conclusion that assessee is a C & F agent and their activities come within the taxable services as C & F agent and accordingly ordered that the assessee should continue with the registration under the category of C & F agent by order dated 28-12-2001 which is at Annexure-C. The assessee being aggrieved by the same filed an appeal in OIA 116/2003-CE before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellate authority on considering the grounds urged, submissions made and arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee by order dated 12-5-2003 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order in original dated 28-12-2001 passed in O.I.A.No.26/2001. 3. Being aggrieved by this order the assessee preferred an appeal before CESTAT in STA 18/2003 (Final order 12/2004) contending that its activity comes within purview of Commission Agent and as such the rejection of the prayer by the assessee for surrendering the registration Certificate issued under the said category of C & F agent by the authorities was erroneous and accordingly sought for allowing of the appeal. On considering the rival submissions made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that activity carried on by the assessee would not come within the purview of the category of clearing and forwarding agent and by the order dated 27-4-2004 allowed the appeal which is at Annexure-A. 4. On considering the rival submissions made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that activity carried on by the assessee would not come within the purview of the category of clearing and forwarding agent and by the order dated 27-4-2004 allowed the appeal which is at Annexure-A. 4. The revenue being aggrieved by the same has come up in further appeal before this Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act contending inter alia that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and the orders passed by the authorities namely, the original authority and the appellate authority were in consonance with the definition of “Clearing and Forwarding Agent” and same did not call for interference and accordingly have raised the question of law and sought for being answered in favour of the appellant and against the assessee. 5. At the time of admission of this appeal on 30-6-2005 this Court had framed the following question of law for being answered and it reads as follows:- “1) When M/s. Mahaveer Generics are rendering the service of receiving, string and distributing the goods manufactured by M/s.CIPLA Ltd., whether the Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore is right in holding that the party was not acting as clearing and forwarding Agents and was not providing taxable service”. We have heard Sri Raghavendra. B, Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri N.R. Bhaskar learned Standing counsel for the appellant-revenue and Sri Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on behalf Sri Lakshmikumaran. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that authorities were fully justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee who had sought for surrendering of the registration Certificate on the ground that it did not come within the purview or category of clearing & forwarding agents and the authorities had taken a holistic view in interpreting the Section 65 (25) of the Finance Act which defines the activity of clearing and forwarding agent and as such the reversal of the said orders by Tribunal, by interpreting the definition “C & F Agent” on the basis of dictionary meaning is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 7. Sri Raghavendra. 7. Sri Raghavendra. B, learned counsel for the appellant would elaborate his submissions to contend that the Tribunal ought not to have traversed beyond interpreting the Section as per the language employed in the Statute itself and would submit that while interpreting the taxing Statutes the authorities cannot import which is not expressed in the provision itself and in this regard he relies upon the decision in the matter of Commissioner of Sales – tax U.P. vs. Modi Sugar Mills Pvt.Ltd., reported in AIR 1961 SC 1047 . He would also add that Tribunal was in error in relying upon the dictionary meaning and in this regard he would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponds India Ltd vs. Commr. Of Trade Tax, Lucknow reported in 2008 (227) E.L.T. 497 (SC) by drawing our attention to paragraph 24 contending that definition of dictionary meaning as found in Wikipedia should not be used in aid of construction of a Fiscal Statute. He would also submit that Section itself being explicitly clear wherein the word consignment agent has also been included in the Section itself and hence it comes within inclusive definition of “C & F Agents” and thus supports the order of Original Authority & 1st appellate authority. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Another vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1502 and seeks for answering the question of law in favour of the appellant-revenue and against the assessee. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent would contend that the authorities relied upon the decision of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd., vs. CCE, Patna reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 222 (Tribunal) and the said decision having been overruled by the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen and Toubro vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2006 (3) STR 321 (Tri.LB) and affirmed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Jalandhar vs. United Plastomers reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 229 (P & H), the Tribunal was fully justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee. He would also contend that the very same Principal namely, Cipla Ltd., had engaged a similar agent in Punjab known as Kulcip Medicines Private Ltd., which activity carried on by the said assessee was identical to the activity carried on by the present assessee and the Punjab & Haryana High Court having taken a view that the activity carried out by the assessee therein was of commission agent and submits that while examining the said issue the order of CESTAT in Mahavir Generics (present case) also came up for consideration & came to be approved and prays this Court should also fall in line with the said Judgment and seeks for answering the question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. He would also bring to our notice the definition of “Commission Agent” as defined under Section 2(19)(a) to contend that respondent would fall within the purview of said definition and the Circular bearing No.59/8/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 issued by the Department wherein the definition of Commission Agent with reference to clearing and forwarding agent has been clearly spelt out and the nature of activity carried on by the present assessee is in consonance with the meaning assigned in the said Circular and thus the activity carried on by the assessee falls outside the purview of clearing and forwarding agent and as such prays that the question of law be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 9. He would rely upon the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar vs. United Plastomers reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 229 (Punjab & Haryana ) to contend that the larger Bench of the Tribunal had explicitly overruled the Prabhat Zarda Factory case as confirmed by the High Court and contends that Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the said Prabhat Zarda Factory case relied upon by the authorities in the instant case was erroneous and accordingly seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The learned counsels appearing for both the appellant and as well as the assessee have taken us extensively through the agreement in question which is at Annexure-D produced in the appeal memorandum to buttress their arguments as clearing and forwarding agent and also as commission agent. 10. The learned counsels appearing for both the appellant and as well as the assessee have taken us extensively through the agreement in question which is at Annexure-D produced in the appeal memorandum to buttress their arguments as clearing and forwarding agent and also as commission agent. Having given our anxious consideration to the submission made at the Bar it would be necessary for us to examine the agreement in question which would be a vital factor to ascertain as to whether the activities carried on by the assessee in question would fall within the category of clearing and forwarding agent or whether it would fall within the category of commission agent as contended by the revenue and assessee respectively. In order to appreciate the said rival contentions it would be necessary to extract few Clauses mentioned in the agreement and accordingly it is extracted below:- “AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and executed on this 1st day of January 1999 by and between M/s.Cipla Limited a company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and having its registered office at No.289, Bellasia Road, Mumbai Central Mumbai-400 000 represented by Mr.R.Gopalakrishnan, hereinafter called the principal (which term shall, wherever the context so permits, include its successors, administrators and assigns), on the one part and Messers Shri. Mahavoor Ganorics, having its place of business at No.16, T.T.Complex, S.G. Narayanappa Layout, 1st floor, II Cross, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore-560 027 represented by Shri. Dhanraj, hereinafter called the Agent (which term shall, wherever the context so permits includes his successors, administrator and assigns) on the other part. NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS: 1. The principal hereby appoints the aforesaid agent as its “Consignment Agent” on a non-exclusive basis for the marketing of the product and the Agent hereby accepts the said appointment on the terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned. 2. The principal will supply the product from any of its depots in loan licence (as per Annexure- ) to the agent on a consignment basis through a stock transfer note for sale by him as the agent of the principal. The principal undertakes to deliver the products to the Agent’s godown at Bangalore at his cost. 3. The Agent will take charge of the product and store them in his godowns and such product will remain the property of the principal at all times. 5. The principal undertakes to deliver the products to the Agent’s godown at Bangalore at his cost. 3. The Agent will take charge of the product and store them in his godowns and such product will remain the property of the principal at all times. 5. The agents will sell the products as consignment agent of the principal, and the prices at which the products can be sold shall be fixed by the principal from time to time after mutual consultation between the Agent and the Principal considering market conditions. 7. The Agent may, in turn, appoint stockists/dealers/distributors in any part of the territory covered by this Agreement after approval from the principal and shall furnish a list of such stockists/dealers/distributors to the principal. He shall further update and send the list to the principal as and when a change takes place. Such stockists/dealers/distributors will be responsible only to the agent and all dealings with them will be done only by the Agent. It is agreed that the principal shall not in any become liable for dealings inter se between the Agent and the stockists/dealers/distributors so appointed. The Agent shall not appoint any sub-agent. 17. For the efforts put in by the Agent he will be compensated as follows: a) The Agent will be entitled to a commission of 5% on net price (excluding commission and sales tax) on all products excluding liquid preparations. The commission so calculated shall be paid to him directly on the previous month’s sales. b) The agent will be entitled to a commission of 9% on net price (excluding commission and sales Tax) on liquid preparations. The commission so calculated shall be paid to him directly on the previous month’s sales”. In order to appreciate the contentions raised herein above and also in the context of agreement clauses and to examine as to whether respondent would fall in either of the category as canvassed it would be necessary for us to extract the definition of the words “clearing and forwarding agent” as also “Commission Agent”. In order to appreciate the contentions raised herein above and also in the context of agreement clauses and to examine as to whether respondent would fall in either of the category as canvassed it would be necessary for us to extract the definition of the words “clearing and forwarding agent” as also “Commission Agent”. As per the definition of Finance Act of 1994 which reads as follows:- “Section 65(16) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended) defines the “Clearing & Forwarding Agent means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person and includes a Consignment Agent (emphasis supplied).” “Commission Agent” Means any person who acts on behalf of another person and causes sale or purchase of goods, or provision or receipt of services, for consideration, and includes any person who, while acting on behalf of another person:- i) deals with goods or services or documents of title to such goods or services; or ii) collects payment of sale price of such goods or services; or iii) guarantee for collection or payment for such goods or services; or iv) undertakes any activities relating to such sale or purchase of such goods or services; “information technology service” means any service in relation to designing (or developing of computer software) or system networking, or any other service primarily in relation to operation or computer systems;) As per Section 65(105)(J) “Taxable Service” in relation to clearing and forwarding agent is defined as follows: “to a client by clearing and forwarding Agent in relation to clearing and forwarding operations in any manner”. Section 65(72) (j) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended) defines the ‘taxable service means any service provided, to a client, by a clearing & forwarding agent in relation to clearing & forwarding operations in any manner (emphasis supplied)” At the outset it is to be noticed by us that the words found in the Section are that any person engaged in private service either directly or indirectly which is connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person would come within the purview of the said definition. It is also to be noted that the consignment agent has also been brought in by inclusive clause. It is also to be noted that the consignment agent has also been brought in by inclusive clause. Thus, in the instant case, it is to be examined whether the conditions prescribed in the said Section is satisfied by reading of the agreement. The agreement itself starts by the words “Principal has agreed to join the agent as it is consignment agent” and even in paragraph 1 of the agreement the principal namely, M/s. Cipla Ltd., have appointed the assessee as “consignment agent” in Clause (5). With regard to the price determination it has been mentioned in the Agreement that principal as well as the consignment agent after mutual consultations and considering the market conditions shall fix the price of the product which would be sold accordingly. Even in Clause (7) the Principal has authorized the consignment agent to appoint stockists, dealers, agents on its behalf. It is in this context the learned counsel appearing for the assessee would contend that Clause No.17 envisage that only a commission would be paid to the agent for sale of the products and the Clauses (a) to (b) clearly postulates that except payment of commission nothing else is envisaged under the agreement and as such submits that it only an assessee carries on commission agent’s work. Thus by reading the above clauses conjunctively it can be seen that clearing and forwarding operations is a compendious expression of nature of services rendered by Principal to the Agent and in the instant case the assessee in question does not stop at rendering only the services of Commission Agency but also extends beyond the same and thus would come within the category of “clearing and forwarding agents” as the operations are in the said nature. 11. Further, we are not able to accept the contention of the assessee for more than one reason. At the outset it is to be seen that agreement itself terms the assessee as a consignment agent. Thus, the parties were at ad-idem when the contract was entered into between them as to what their status would be. 11. Further, we are not able to accept the contention of the assessee for more than one reason. At the outset it is to be seen that agreement itself terms the assessee as a consignment agent. Thus, the parties were at ad-idem when the contract was entered into between them as to what their status would be. In so far this contention is concerned the parties namely that the principal and the agent having understood in unequivocal terms as to their duties and responsibilities which include not only having effective control of the goods by the Principal but also in so far as the price determination is concerned it was in the hands of both the principal and as well as the agent namely, the assessee. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that in the event of assessee being a commission agent the price determination would also be left within the domain of a Commission agent. The said reasoning would not appeal to logic. Hence, we are unable to accept the said contention. 12. Another aspect being that the assessee having given the authority and power to appoint dealers, stockists and distributors it is clear that it is not a mere case of commission agent but, on the other hand, it is the responsibility fixed on the assessee to carry out the activity of getting the goods stored by clearing it and then forwarding it to the stockists and dealers if any appointed by the assessee itself or as directed by the Principal. If it were to be the commission agency only these clauses would not have found a place in the contract. Hence, we are unable to agree with the contention of the assessee that they should be classified under the category of commission agent. In so far as the Judgment relied upon by the assessee viz., L & T supra, the Tribunal has held therein at para 9.3 to the following effect:- “9.3. An agent engaged only for procuring purchase orders for the vendor on commission basis does not engage in any of the above activities, directly or indirectly. Commission agent engaged to procure orders and not entrusted with the work of clearing and forwarding of the goods would be a person who, in the ordinary course of business, makes contracts for sale or purchase of goods for others. Commission agent engaged to procure orders and not entrusted with the work of clearing and forwarding of the goods would be a person who, in the ordinary course of business, makes contracts for sale or purchase of goods for others. The definition of “Commission agent” in Section 2(aaa) of Central Excise Act, 1944, would apply in relation to service tax as it applies in relation to duty of excise by virtue of sub-Section (121) or Section 65 of the Act. Services of Commission agent are included in the definition of “business auxiliary service” under sub-Section (19) of Section 65 w.e.f. 1-7-2003, which includes service of a Commission agent. As defined in explanation (a) to sub-Section (19) of Section 65 Commission agent is a person who acts on behalf of another person and causes sale or purchase of goods, or provision or receipt of services, for consideration, and includes any person who, while acting on behalf of another person: deals with goods or services or documents of title to such goods or services; or collects payment of sale price of such goods or services; or guarantees for collection or payment for such goods or services; or undertakes any activities relating to such sale of purchase of such goods or services. This clearly shows that the activity of mere procurement of purchase orders for the principal on commission basis of a Commission agent is treated separately by the Parliament from the activities of a clearing & forwarding agent. Activity of procuring orders is thus independent of clearing & forwarding operations. The agents doing these activities can be different. Moreover, clearing & forwarding operations do not flow directly or indirectly from mere procurement of orders. There is no obligation on the person procuring orders as a commission agent for the principal, only by virtue of that agency, to carry out clearing & forwarding operations in respect of the goods which are to be supplied pursuant to the orders so procured”. and have come to the conclusion that the agent engaged for procuring the purchase orders for the vendor on commission basis does not engage in the above activities as mentioned at para 9.2. therein. and have come to the conclusion that the agent engaged for procuring the purchase orders for the vendor on commission basis does not engage in the above activities as mentioned at para 9.2. therein. If there was mere procurement of purchase orders for the principal on commission basis by the assessee, it would have definitely fallen under the category of commission agent and would have stood outside the activity of the clearing and forwarding agent. But, it is not so in the instant case as seen from the Clauses mentioned in the Agreement. Thus, we will have to hold in the context of the agreement in question that apart from procuring the orders the assessee is also engaged in the activities as mentioned in the agreement which is thus independent of commission agency. In certain circumstances there may be a situation where only commission agency work is carried out and in a situation as is existing in the present case the assessee may also indulge or carry on with not only with the work of commission agent but also with the clearing and forwarding as a Consignment Agent and thus both these activities might overlap and on account of such overlap it cannot be said that the assessee would fall only under the category of commission agent and claim to distance himself from coming within the ambit and purview of clearing and forwarding agent. If it was only the case of commission agency there was no necessity or requirement by a commission agent to empower the respondent to appoint Dealers, Stockiest etc., for the principal as we have noticed in the instant case. Hence, the said decision of Larsen and Tubro supra pressed into service is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 13. In so far as the second case is concerned that is the Judgment in the case of Commissioner of C.EX., Jalandhar vs. Kulcip Medicines (P) Ltd referred to supra wherein the Larsen and Tuobro case of the larger Bench of the Tribunal having been relied upon it has been held in paragraph-13 in KULCIP’s Case to the following effect:- “13. ……. ……. and mere procuring or having orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission basis would net amount to providing services as “clearing and forwarding agent”, within the meaning of the definition of that expression under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994. While reaching to this conclusion the Tribunal has observed that the expression “directly or indirectly” and “in any manner” occurring in the definition of ‘clearing and forwarding’ agent cannot be isolated or the activity of clearing and forwarding operations and an agent it engaged only for procuring purchase orders for the vendor on commission basis does not engage in any of the activities connected with clearing and forwarding operations directly or indirectly. And thus found on facts that it was mere procuring the orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission basis and thus would fall outside the purview of clearing and forwarding agent. The said decision would be inapplicable to the facts of the case as we have held that activity carried on by the assessee is that of a Consignment Agent. The Judgment of KULCIP MEDICINE-Supra relied upon the learned counsel for the respondent to contend that Mahaveer Generics case namely, the Judgment in question before this Court in the present appeal has also been taken into consideration in KULCIP’s Case is liable to be brushed aside the contention of the assessee is not appealing to us for the reason that Tribunal in the said decision (KULCIP’s Case) at paragraph-13 has taken the view that the Judgment in Mahaveer Generic (present case) has been accepted by the revenue and no appeal has been filed and accordingly was persuaded to accept the stand of assessee. The view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in KULCIP’s Case, we find is factually in error since the revenue had filed the present appeal challenging the legality and correctness of Mahaveer Generic case in the present appeal & it was pending as on the date of disposal in KULCIP’s Case by Punjab & Haryana High Court and hence, the view taken in Kulcip Medicine case is inapplicable to the facts & circumstances of the case and also in the background of our examination, scrutiny and interpretation with regard to the agreement in question. 14. 14. The contention of the learned counsel with regard to the definition of commission agent as defined under the Finance Act namely, Section 65(19) under the heading Business Auxiliary Service that they would come within the said purview and would fall outside the purview under the definition of the clearing and forwarding agent is examined in the background of definition Clauses which has been extracted by us herein above and we find that in the definition of “Clearing & Forwarding Agent” itself the consignment agent has been brought within the said Section. We have also examined the agreement in question and we find not only the consignment agent is expressly described at various places as stated herein above and on combined reading of the agreement we find that assessee in question has not restricted its activities to business of commission agency but has also carried on business as Consignment Agent as mentioned in Clause (iii), (v) and (vii) of the agreement and as such we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee to hold that they would stand outside the definition of clearing and forwarding agent. In this context, it would be of benefit to extract the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of KPTCL supra at paras 12, 13 & 14 which reads as follows:- “12. Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899) AC 99 made the following classic statement: “The word “include” is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. But the word “include” is susceptible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the words or expressions defined. It may be equivalent to “mean and include”, and in that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions”. 15. It may be equivalent to “mean and include”, and in that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions”. 15. Dilworth (supra) and few other decisions came up for consideration in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co.Ltd. and this Court summarized the legal position that inclusive definition by the Legislature is used; (one) to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases so as to take in the ordinary, popular and natural sense of the words and also the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it; (two) to include meaning about which there might be some dispute; (three) to bring under one nomenclature all transactions possessing certain similar features but going under different names. 16. It goes without saying that interpretation of a word or expression must depend on the text and the context. The resort to the word ‘includes’ by the Legislature often shows the intention of the Legislature that it wanted to give extensive and enlarged meaning to such expression. Sometimes, however, the context may suggest that word “includes” may have been designed to mean “means”. The setting, context and object of an enactment may provide sufficient guidance for interpretation of word ‘includes’ for the purposes of such enactment”. Thus, the activity carried on by the assessee with reference to the text of the enactment would depend on the nature and activity and as held by Their Lordships both in text and context the word ‘includes’ as mentioned in the definition clause of clearing and forwarding agent we find that the Legislature in its wisdom have desired to give extended and enlarged meaning to such expression and as such we accept the contention of the revenue to hold that the activity carried on by the assessee in question would fall within the purview of clearing and forwarding agent and accordingly we answer the question of law framed herein above by holding that the services rendered by the respondent would fall within the category of “clearing and forwarding agent” and thus, amenable to the definition of taxable service. Accordingly, the following order is passed:- ORDER The substantial question of law formulated herein above is answered in favour of the appellant-revenue and against the assessee and the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.18/2003 vide its Final order No.12/2004 dated 27-4-2004 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the original authority dated 12-5-2003 is hereby confirmed. No costs.