Clubbing of excise clearances requires proof of financial flow back or mere camouflage, not just shared business ies.

Common premises, shared facilities, common workers and other business conveniences do not by themselves justify clubbing excise clearances of separately constituted units. Clubbing is sustainable only where there is conclusive material showing that the units are a mere camouflage or that financial flow back exists between them. On the record, no such financial flow back was proved, and the other common features were insufficient to treat the units as one manufacturer for excise purposes. The demand based on clubbing was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the clearances of two separately constituted units were liable to be clubbed for excise exemption purposes on the basis of common premises, common facilities, common workers and alleged common business interest.

Analysis: Separate legal entities are not to be treated as one manufacturer merely because they share premises, address, telephone facilities, employees, or other business conveniences. Such factors may indicate close association, but they do not by themselves justify clubbing of clearances. Clubbing can be sustained only where there is conclusive material showing that the units are a mere camouflage or that there is financial flow back between them. On the record, there was no evidence of any financial flow back from one unit to the other. The other common features noticed in the order-in-original were insufficient, in the absence of such evidence, to establish that the units were one and the same for excise purposes.

Conclusion: The clearances could not be clubbed, and the demand based on clubbing was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Common ownership features or shared business ities do not justify clubbing of clearances between separately registered units unless there is conclusive evidence of financial flow back or that the separate units are a mere camouflage.

---