Clubbing of clearances requires proof of mutual business interest and financial flow back, not mere common management or proximity.

Clubbing of clearances for small-scale exemption is justified only where the Department proves substantive mutuality of business interest, common funding, production control, or financial flow back; mere proximity, common supervision, related persons, or some financial dealings are insufficient. The note records that separately licensed units operating from different premises, with independent turnover, separate shareholding and business set-up, and no conclusive financial flow back, are to be treated as distinct entities, especially where input movement under Rule 57F(2) and separate excise administration support independence. Penalty may still be moderated where warranted, while redemption fine can remain intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances of the two units could be clubbed on the allegation that one unit was created to avail the benefit of the small-scale exemption and that there was mutuality of financial interest between them; (ii) Whether the penalty required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances of the two units could be clubbed on the allegation that one unit was created to avail the benefit of the small-scale exemption and that there was mutuality of financial interest between them.

Analysis: Clubbing of clearances is not justified merely because of proximity, common supervision, related persons, or some financial dealings. The decisive test is whether there is clear evidence of mutuality of business interest, common funding, production control, or financial flow back showing that the units are in substance one and the same. On the record, the units were separately licensed, operated from different premises, had substantial independent turnover, were functioning under separate shareholding and business set-up, and had no conclusive evidence of financial flow back. The permission granted for movement of inputs under Rule 57F(2) and the existence of separate excise administration also supported independent existence. The allegation that the second unit was a dummy unit was therefore not established.

Conclusion: The clearances could not be clubbed and the demand based on that premise was unsustainable; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty required interference.

Analysis: The order warranted modification on the question of penalty. While the redemption fine was left undisturbed, the penalty was considered excessive in the circumstances and was reduced to a token amount.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 500; this issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside on the principal clubbing issue, and the appeal was otherwise disposed of by reducing the penalty while leaving the redemption fine intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Clubbing of clearances of separate units is permissible only where the Department proves substantive mutuality of business interest, common funding, or financial flow back, and not on the basis of mere common management, proximity, or related parties.

---