Clubbing of clearances denied where separate units showed factual distinctness and no device to split clearances for exemption.

Clearances of three units could not be clubbed for denying exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE and Notification No. 1/93-CE merely because the units were under common family control. The units were established at different times, operated from separate premises in the same industrial estate, and held separate registrations, which supported their factual distinctness. Revenue failed to prove common control, interdependence, or a device to split clearances for wrongful exemption. The Board circular and the cited Supreme Court decision did not alter that factual position, so clubbing was not justified and denial of exemption was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the clearances of the three units could be clubbed and the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE and Notification No. 1/93-CE denied on the ground that the units were under common control and were structured as a device to evade duty.

Analysis: The units were found to have been established at different points in time, were located in different premises within the industrial estate, and had separate registrations for regulatory purposes. The fact that the units belonged to members of the same family was held insufficient by itself to establish common control or subterfuge. The evidence relied on by Revenue did not establish that the inter-unit relationship or use of facilities showed a device to split clearances for wrongful availment of exemption. The cited Board circular and the Supreme Court decision did not assist Revenue on the facts, as the factual distinctness of the enterprises remained unshaken.

Conclusion: The clubbing of clearances was not justified and the denial of exemption was unsustainable; the appeal failed and the findings in the impugned order were upheld.

---