Clubbing of Dummy Unit Clearances Upheld, but Confiscation Set Aside and Penalties Modified

Where separately registered units are merely facade entities with common premises, machinery, labour, control, procurement, funds and branding, their clearances may be clubbed by lifting the corporate veil; the goods were treated as complete air-conditioning systems cleared in CKD/SKD condition, and the duty demand was upheld. Suppression of material facts and creation of dummy units justified invocation of the extended limitation period, so the demand was not time-barred. Confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery under the omitted confiscation provision could not stand, and the penalties were modified by reducing some and setting aside one individual penalty. The duty confirmation remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances of the alleged dummy units were liable to be clubbed with the clearances of the main unit and whether the goods were correctly treated as complete air-conditioning systems for duty purposes; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation; (iii) whether confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery and the penalties imposed under the Central Excise Rules were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances of the alleged dummy units were liable to be clubbed with the clearances of the main unit and whether the goods were correctly treated as complete air-conditioning systems for duty purposes.

Analysis: The evidence showed common premises, common machinery and labour, common control, shared procurement, flow of funds, use of the same brand/stickers, and clearances routed through units created only on paper. The arrangement was held to be one manufacturing entity in substance, justifying clubbing of clearances by lifting the corporate veil. The goods cleared were found to be complete air-conditioning systems cleared in CKD/SKD condition and not mere parts.

Conclusion: The clubbing of clearances and the duty demand on the basis of complete air-conditioning systems were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The clearance pattern and the creation of dummy units were treated as a case of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the extended period under the charging provision was held invocable.

Conclusion: The demand was not held to be time-barred.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery and the penalties imposed under the Central Excise Rules were sustainable.

Analysis: Confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery under the omitted confiscation provision could not be sustained. As regards penalties, the main penalty on the manufacturer was reduced to the amount already imposed in the first round, the penalty on one individual was set aside, and the penalty on the other individual was restricted to the earlier amount. The remaining penal consequences were sustained to the extent indicated.

Conclusion: Confiscation was set aside and the penalties were modified as above.

Final Conclusion: The duty confirmation was left undisturbed, but the confiscation order was set aside and the penalties were partly reduced or annulled, resulting in a partly successful challenge for the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence establishes that separately registered units are only facade entities used to split clearances and avail an ineligible exemption, their clearances may be clubbed and duty demanded by lifting the corporate veil, but confiscation and penalty must still conform to the continuing statutory authority and the bounds of the earlier final order.

---