SSI clearances cannot be clubbed on common branding alone without proof of flow-back, shared resources, or mutuality of interest.

Clubbing of clearances between separate SSI units requires proof of legally relevant connecting factors before exemption can be denied and duty recovered. Common branding by itself is not enough where the brand belongs to the units themselves and there is no evidence of financial flow-back, common machinery, common labour, or mutuality of interest. Separate registration, distinct plant and machinery, separate labour force, and an independent energy source support the existence of distinct units. On those facts, clubbing was not justified and the duty demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the clearances of two separate SSI units could be clubbed for the purpose of denying exemption and recovering duty from one unit.

Analysis: The demand was founded only on clubbing of clearances with a sister unit. The brand name belonged to the respondents, and the case was not based on the bar against use of another person's brand name under the exemption notification. There was no allegation or proof of financial flow-back, common machinery, common labour, or mutuality of interest. The units were separately registered and operated with separate plant and machinery, labour force, and energy source. In these circumstances, the conditions necessary for clubbing of clearances were not established.

Conclusion: The clearances could not be clubbed, and the duty demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The lower appellate authority's order was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Clubbing of clearances between separate units requires proof of the legally relevant factors connecting them for duty liability, and common branding by itself is insufficient where financial flow-back and mutuality of interest are not shown.

---