SSI clubbing and clandestine removal require statutory conditions and corroborative evidence, not common management or private records alone.

Clubbing of SSI clearances is confined to the statutory situations where one manufacturer clears goods from multiple factories or multiple manufacturers clear from the same factory; common management, mutual interest, or a common brand name alone do not justify clubbing of two separate private limited companies. A demand for duty, interest, and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal must rest on reliable corroborative evidence, not merely on a private computer sheet or discrepancies in raw material accounts. In the absence of supporting evidence such as buyer statements, abnormal power use, or other independent investigation, private records and unexplained discrepancies are insufficient to sustain the demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances of two private limited companies could be clubbed for SSI exemption merely because of common management, mutual interest and use of a common brand name; (ii) Whether the demands for duty, interest and penalty on alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal were sustainable on the basis of a private computer sheet and discrepancies in raw material accounts alone.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances of two private limited companies could be clubbed for SSI exemption merely because of common management, mutual interest and use of a common brand name.

Analysis: Clubbing under the SSI exemption applies where one manufacturer clears goods from more than one factory belonging to him, or where more than one manufacturer clears goods from the same factory. The two units were separate private limited companies and therefore distinct legal entities. Mutuality of interest, even if present, is relevant to valuation under the excise law and does not by itself justify clubbing of SSI clearances. The show cause notice proceeded on an incorrect legal basis.

Conclusion: The clubbing of clearances was not permissible and the Revenue's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demands for duty, interest and penalty on alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal were sustainable on the basis of a private computer sheet and discrepancies in raw material accounts alone.

Analysis: The Revenue's case rested only on discrepancies between Form-IV records and a private document seized from one unit. No independent corroboration was brought out to establish clandestine manufacture or removal, such as evidence from buyers, excess electricity consumption, abnormal labour or packing material use, or other supporting investigation. The discrepancies were explained by the assessees, and the record did not establish removal without payment of duty beyond reasonable doubt. A demand for clandestine removal cannot be sustained on surmises or on a solitary private record without corroboration.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest and penalties was unsustainable and the assessees succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were rejected, while the assessees were granted relief against the demand and penalties arising from the allegation of clandestine removal.

Ratio Decidendi: Clubbing of SSI clearances requires satisfaction of the statutory clubbing conditions, and clandestine removal must be proved by reliable corroborative evidence; private records and unexplained discrepancies by themselves are insufficient.

---