Clubbing clearances of two manufacturing units for SSI exemption under Notification 175/86 rejected; mutuality of interest not proven, demand time-barred.

Clubbing of clearances for denial of SSI exemption under Notification 175/86 turned on whether two manufacturing units had mutuality of interest or one was a facade. CEGAT held that separate Central Excise registration, acceptance of classification lists and RT-12 returns, separate Sales Tax registration and ITR filings, and absence of evidence of fabrication of invoices, flow-back, or common control outweighed factors like common landlord, continuity of distributors, and movement of some employees; clubbing was therefore impermissible and the order was set aside. On limitation, since the Department was aware of the constitution and common directorship/partnership through contemporaneous correspondence, suppression was not proved; the demand was held time-barred. Penalty on the second unit was quashed for want of SCN, and appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved: Duty demand confirmation, clubbing of clearances, penalty imposition, non-issuance of show cause notice, mutuality of interest, extended period of limitation.

Duty Demand Confirmation and Penalty Imposition: The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand on goods cleared by two entities, holding that one had created another unit to circumvent monetary limits. The penalty equal to the duty amount was imposed on one entity under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.

Non-issuance of Show Cause Notice: The appellants argued that the non-issuance of a show cause notice to one entity, whose clearances were clubbed with another, invalidated the proceedings. Citing relevant precedents, it was held that the absence of a notice to one unit when both units had separate existence rendered the proceedings flawed.

Mutuality of Interest: The appellants contended that the sale of plant and machinery to another entity did not establish mutual interest. The use of shared resources and premises was explained as not indicative of control. The lack of financial flow back and separate staff further supported the absence of mutual interest between the entities.

Extended Period of Limitation: The Department was aware of the relationship between the directors of both entities and the discontinuation of manufacturing activities. Correspondence and submissions demonstrated that the Department had knowledge of the separate legal existence of the entities. Consequently, the demand was held to be barred by limitation, and the penalty imposed was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of a show cause notice.

This judgment sets aside the duty demand confirmation and penalty imposition due to the non-issuance of a show cause notice to one entity, lack of mutual interest between the entities, and the Department's awareness of the entities' legal separation, leading to the demand being time-barred.

---