Clubbing of excisable clearances requires proof of financial flowback and common control, not merely shared facilities or loans.

Clubbing of excisable clearances requires conclusive evidence that the units are not independent in law, including proof of financial flowback, common control of profits and management, or a sham arrangement. Mere similarity of shareholding, inter-unit loans, separate financing, common premises, common telephone, shared generator, or mutual use of machinery is not enough by itself. The record showed separate partnership arrangements, separate commercial dealings, and separate financial records, so the revenue's case for treating the three units as one taxable entity was not established. The principle stated is that common facilities or commercial convenience do not, without stronger proof, justify clubbing of clearances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances of the three units could be clubbed on the basis of alleged financial flowback and arrangement of shares; (ii) Whether common premises, common telephone, common generator and mutual use of machinery were sufficient to establish that one unit was functioning on behalf of the others.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances of the three units could be clubbed on the basis of alleged financial flowback and arrangement of shares.

Analysis: Clubbing of clearances requires conclusive evidence that the units are not independent in law and that there is financial flowback or common control of profits and management. Mere exchange of loans, similar share pattern, and assertions of mutual financing do not, by themselves, establish that the units are one and the same. The record did not show reliable proof of profit flowback or domination of one unit over the others. The units had separate partnership arrangements and separate commercial dealings, including charging interest and maintaining separate financial records.

Conclusion: The requirement for clubbing on the ground of financial flowback was not established, and the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether common premises, common telephone, common generator and mutual use of machinery were sufficient to establish that one unit was functioning on behalf of the others.

Analysis: Common facilities and mutual use of some resources are not conclusive circumstances to prove that clearances are being made for and on behalf of another unit. Such features may be commercially innocuous or merely indicative of convenience unless supported by stronger evidence of lack of independence or sham organisation. The evidence relied upon by the Revenue was therefore insufficient to displace the separate legal identity of the units.

Conclusion: Common facilities and mutual transactions were insufficient to justify clubbing of clearances, and the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish that the three units were a single taxable entity for the purpose of clubbing clearances, so the impugned denial of clubbing was sustained and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Clubbing of excisable clearances cannot be ordered merely because units share premises, telephone, machinery or mutual financial dealings unless there is conclusive evidence of financial flowback and common control showing that the units are not independent in law.

---