Clubbing of clearances requires proof of financial flow-back; common facilities alone do not establish mutuality of interest.

Mere commonality of premises, management, labour, electricity, testing facilities or other business arrangements was held insufficient to establish mutuality of interest for clubbing clearances. The controlling test is whether there is evidence of common funding and financial flow-back showing that one unit financed the other and appropriated its profits; no such evidence was found. The units were separately incorporated and separately registered, and the findings based on unsigned statements and assumed common control were treated as inadequately supported. On that basis, the clearances were not clubbable for SSI exemption purposes, the duty demand failed, and the penalties on the units and individuals also could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the clearances of the two private limited units were liable to be clubbed on the ground of mutuality of interest, and whether the duty demand and consequential penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the test that mere commonality of premises, management, labour, electricity, testing facilities, or similar business arrangements is not by itself sufficient to establish mutuality of business interest. The controlling consideration is whether there is evidence of common funding and financial flow-back showing that one unit financed the other and appropriated its profits. The record did not disclose such evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the units were separately incorporated and separately registered with the excise department and other authorities, and that the findings resting on certain unsigned statements and on assumed common control were not adequately supported. On the alleged shareholding and other common features, the Tribunal held that these factors alone did not justify clubbing of clearances for SSI exemption purposes.

Conclusion: The clearances were not clubbable and the duty demand was unsustainable. The penalties on the units and the individuals also could not survive. The Revenue's challenge to non-imposition of mandatory penalty failed.

---