Clubbing of clearances requires proof of common control or financial flow back; shared brand and manpower alone are insufficient.

Common brand use, shared storage, or inter-use of manpower did not by itself justify clubbing clearances for exemption purposes where there was no evidence of financial flow back, common funding, or managerial control. The record also did not support treating the assessee as a dummy unit or as functionally controlled by the other concerns. Exemption under the relevant notifications was therefore upheld, and the grounds relied on by the original authority could not sustain denial of benefit, especially where they went beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent's clearances could be clubbed with those of three other concerns on the ground of common brand name, common storage, and inter-use of manpower so as to deny exemption under the relevant notifications; (ii) whether the respondent was a dummy unit or otherwise so connected with the other concerns as to forfeit exemption.

Issue (i): whether the respondent's clearances could be clubbed with those of three other concerns on the ground of common brand name, common storage, and inter-use of manpower so as to deny exemption under the relevant notifications.

Analysis: The materials did not establish any financial flow back, common funding, or managerial control between the respondent and the other concerns. Mere common storage of finished goods, use of workers from another unit, or sale under the same unregistered brand name was insufficient by itself to treat the units as one for exemption purposes. The grounds relied upon by the original authority were also beyond the scope of the show cause notice and could not justify denial of exemption on that basis.

Conclusion: The clearances could not be clubbed and exemption could not be denied on this ground; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent was a dummy unit or otherwise so connected with the other concerns as to forfeit exemption.

Analysis: The respondent was a separate private limited company and no evidence showed that it functioned as a dummy for the other concerns. The existence of a common trade name did not make one concern the manufacturer for another, and the record did not show any legal or factual basis for treating the respondent as controlled by the other units.

Conclusion: The respondent was not a dummy unit and remained eligible for the exemption notifications; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the respondent's entitlement to exemption was upheld on the basis that no clubbing of clearances or dummy-unit inference was legally sustainable on the record.

Ratio Decidendi: Common brand use, common storage, or shared workforce does not justify clubbing of clearances or denial of exemption unless there is evidence of common control, financial flow back, or a dummy arrangement.

---