Clubbing of clearances requires proof that separate units were dummies and goods were manufactured at the appellant's premises.

Clubbing of clearances of separate units cannot be sustained unless the department proves with acceptable evidence that the other units were dummies and that the goods were actually manufactured at the appellant's factory. Separate units, separate invoicing and accounts, and the absence of corroboration from customers, transporters, buyers or job workers all weighed against treating the units as one entity. Common supervision by family members or occasional financial accommodation was insufficient. Where goods are manufactured through job workers, the job worker is the manufacturer in law, and the demand against the appellant fails if that factual link is not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the clearances of the four units could be clubbed and duty demanded from the appellant on the footing that the other units were created as dummies to evade duty under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The record did not establish with tangible evidence that the goods shown as manufactured by the other units were in fact manufactured at the appellant's premises. The statement relied upon did not amount to an admission of such manufacture. The existence of separate units, separate invoicing and accounts, and the absence of evidence from customers, transporters, buyers or job workers to show that the goods emanated from the appellant's factory weighed against clubbing. Mere common supervision by family members or occasional financial accommodation was held insufficient to treat all units as one entity. Where the goods were got manufactured through job workers, the job worker would be the manufacturer in law.

Conclusion: The clubbing of clearances was not sustainable and the duty demand against the appellant failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Clubbing of independent units cannot be upheld unless the department proves by acceptable evidence that the goods of the other units were ically manufactured in the appellant's factory and that the units functioned as a single entity; manufacture through job workers does not by itself justify treating the principal as the manufacturer.

---