Clubbing of clearances applies where units operate under common management, shared workers and integrated production records.

Separately named units under common management, with a common Works Manager, common workers, common muster roll, shared raw material and production records, and integrated production control, were treated as one for excise purposes. On those facts, their clearances were liable to be clubbed because the units were not truly independent. The unit-wise exemptions under Notification No. 46/81-C.E. and Notification No. 178/85 were unavailable because the factory-based exemption failed on the common employment record and the later exemption had to be tested on clubbed clearances rather than each unit separately.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances of the differently named units were liable to be clubbed on the ground of common management, common workers and common records; (ii) whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/81-C.E. and Notification No. 178/85 for unit-wise exemption.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances of the differently named units were liable to be clubbed on the ground of common management, common workers and common records.

Analysis: The record showed that the units were under the same control, had a common Works Manager and Administrative Officer, maintained a common muster roll and common raw material and production records, and used running serial numbers and the same code for the battery chargers. The evidence also showed that orders received in the name of one unit were manufactured by other units. On these facts, the units could not be treated as truly independent for excise purposes.

Conclusion: The clearances were correctly clubbed, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/81-C.E. and Notification No. 178/85 for unit-wise exemption.

Analysis: Notification No. 46/81-C.E. exempted Item 68 goods other than goods manufactured in a factory as understood under section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. The common muster roll showed employment of more than the statutory threshold across the units, so the units did not qualify for the factory-based exemption. For the later notification, the exemption had to be assessed on the basis of the clubbed clearances and not separately for each unit, and the appellants failed on that basis as well.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to either exemption, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The common control and integrated manner of operation justified clubbing of clearances, and the claimed unit-wise excise exemptions were unavailable; the appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where separately named units function under common management with common workers, common records and integrated production control, their clearances may be clubbed and unit-wise exemption based on factory status or first-clearance limits cannot be claimed separately.

---