Clubbing of unit clearances and RG 1 confiscation fail absent proof of common funding, profit flowback, or marketable goods.

Separate clearances of distinct units cannot be clubbed for exemption and duty absent proof of common funding, profit-sharing or flowback of profits, so aggregation of the two units was rejected. Goods found unfinished and not shown to be marketable had not reached the stage requiring RG 1 entry, so confiscation for non-recording failed. The shortage in stock remained unexplained, so duty was sustained only to that limited extent. As the clubbing and confiscation findings could not stand, confiscation of building, land and other assets was set aside, while the penalty was reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances of the two units were liable to be clubbed for the purpose of exemption and duty; (ii) whether the goods found unrecorded in RG 1 register were liable to confiscation; (iii) whether the duty demand on the short-found goods was sustainable; and (iv) whether the penalty and confiscation of building, land and other assets were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances of the two units were liable to be clubbed for the purpose of exemption and duty

Analysis: The basis for clubbing was examined on the alleged sharing of profits, interest-free loans and absence of job-work charges. The record did not establish that the profit of one unit was shared by the partners of the other unit. The explanation that interest was not chargeable under the personal law of the appellants was not controverted. The job-work arrangement was shown to be occasional. In the absence of material showing common funding or flowback of profits, the separate clearances could not be aggregated.

Conclusion: The clearances of the two units were not liable to be clubbed.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods found unrecorded in RG 1 register were liable to confiscation

Analysis: The goods were found in an unfinished state, meant to be inspected and packed, and were not shown to be fully marketable. On that footing, they had not reached the stage at which entry in RG 1 was necessary. Since marketable condition was not established, the foundation for confiscation failed.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods found unrecorded was not sustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the duty demand on the short-found goods was sustainable

Analysis: As regards the short-found goods, no satisfactory explanation was furnished. The shortage was not properly accounted for, and duty liability was therefore attracted only to the extent sustained by the record.

Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained only to the extent of Rs. 2,074.80.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalty and confiscation of building, land and other assets were justified

Analysis: In view of the setting aside of clubbing and confiscation of the goods, the consequential confiscation of immovable property could not survive. However, the shortage aspect justified continuation of a reduced penalty.

Conclusion: The confiscation of building, land and other assets was set aside and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the principal issue of clubbing and on confiscation of the unrecorded goods, while the duty demand was sustained only in a reduced amount and the penalty was confined to a lesser sum.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate clearances of distinct units cannot be clubbed in the absence of proof of common funding, profit-sharing or flowback, and goods not shown to have reached a marketable stage are not liable to confiscation for non-entry in RG 1.

---