Excise clubbing requires proof of a dummy unit; duty follows the premises where manufacture actually occurred.

Common partners, a shared work force and related business arrangements are not enough, by themselves, to club two excise units; clubbing requires evidence that the concerns function as one financial entity or that one is a dummy of the other, and on the material considered the units were treated as independent. Manufacture of electric motors was found to have taken place at the other unit's premises, where the necessary machinery was installed and even the respondent's machinery was kept on rent, so duty was attributable to that premises. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh quantification after hearing the unit concerned.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the clearances of the two units could be clubbed on the basis of common partners, common work force and related business arrangements; (ii) whether the duty demand could be sustained on the footing that the electric motors were manufactured in the premises of one unit and not the other, and whether the matter required reconsideration for quantification after hearing that unit.

Issue (i): whether the clearances of the two units could be clubbed on the basis of common partners, common work force and related business arrangements

Analysis: Common ownership, related partners, common work force or shared managerial features do not by themselves establish that two concerns are one and the same for excise purposes. Clubbing is justified only when the evidence shows that the concerns function as one financial entity and that one unit is merely a dummy of the other. On the material before it, the Tribunal accepted the view that the two units could not be treated as one merely on the grounds relied upon by the department.

Conclusion: The units were not liable to be clubbed merely because of common partners or allied circumstances, and they were to be treated as independent units.

Issue (ii): whether the duty demand could be sustained on the footing that the electric motors were manufactured in the premises of one unit and not the other, and whether the matter required reconsideration for quantification after hearing that unit

Analysis: The record showed that the machinery necessary for manufacture was installed at the premises of the other concern, and even the machinery said to belong to the respondent unit was situated there and was on rent. In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that the goods had in fact been manufactured at that premises and that duty had to be worked out accordingly. Since that unit had not been properly brought into the proceedings for the purpose of determining the quantum of duty, the matter had to go back for appropriate orders after giving it an opportunity on the extent of liability.

Conclusion: The demand was upheld in principle against the unit where manufacture was found to have taken place, and the case was remitted for fresh determination of the quantum after hearing that unit.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded in establishing that the manufacture had taken place at the other unit and that duty was recoverable accordingly, but the matter required remand for reconsideration of the exact amount payable after giving that unit an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise clubbing, common ownership or common facilities are insufficient unless the department proves that the units function as one financial entity or that one is a dummy of the other; duty follows the unit where manufacture is actually found to have occurred.

---