Common management and brand use justify clubbing of clearances for excise duty, while a competent corrigendum remains valid.

A corrigendum issued by a Superintendent was upheld as valid because the officer had jurisdiction to issue it. On excise clubbing, the units were treated as interdependent and under common control because they had common partners from the same family, used the same brand name, operated from the same premises, and maintained common management and accounts. On those facts, their clearances could be clubbed for duty purposes, and the revenue challenge to that basis failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the corrigendum issued by the Superintendent was valid and whether the clearances of two units were liable to be clubbed for levy of duty.

Analysis: The corrigendum was treated as valid because the Superintendent had jurisdiction to issue it. On clubbing, the decisive factors were that both firms had common partners belonging to the same family, used the same brand name, operated from the same premises, and had common management and accounts. In such circumstances, the units exhibited the interdependence and control necessary for clubbing of clearances.

Conclusion: The corrigendum was valid and the clubbing of clearances was rightly upheld, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand was confined to the clubbed clearances of the two units, and the revenue's challenge to that basis failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two units are under common management and control, share common partners, use the same brand name, and function from the same premises with common accounts, their clearances may be clubbed for excise purposes; a duly issued corrigendum by a competent departmental officer is valid.

---