Clubbing of clearances fails without proof of common control or financial flow back; photographic plate developing was not manufacture.

Clubbing of clearances was not justified because the evidence did not prove that the units were dummy concerns under common control or that there was the required financial flow back. Shared premises, family relationship, loans, guarantees, and business assistance were held insufficient without proof of overall control over production, sales, or management. Colorica's activity of developing photographic plates for offset printing was not treated as manufacture, so its clearances could not be added to the appellant's clearances. The duty demand based on clubbing was therefore unsustainable and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances of the three units could be clubbed on the basis that they were dummy or shell concerns under common control with financial inter-relationship; (ii) Whether the activities of Colorica amounted to manufacture so as to permit inclusion of its clearances in the appellant's clearances.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances of the three units could be clubbed on the basis that they were dummy or shell concerns under common control with financial inter-relationship.

Analysis: The constitution of the units, the shareholding pattern, and the evidence relied upon did not establish that the two Shetty brothers exercised overall control over production, sales, or management. Day-to-day management by professionals and participation by owners only in major decisions was not enough to infer dummy units. Common office premises, family relationship, assistance in business, loans, guarantees, and project-report references were treated as insufficient, by themselves or collectively, to prove the kind of common control or financial flow back required for clubbing of clearances.

Conclusion: Clubbing of the clearances of the units was not established and was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the activities of Colorica amounted to manufacture so as to permit inclusion of its clearances in the appellant's clearances.

Analysis: The activity carried on by Colorica consisted of developing photographic plates required for offset printing. That activity, by itself, did not amount to manufacture, and there was no finding in the impugned order treating it as manufacture. In the absence of dutiable manufacture, no clearance value of Colorica could be added to the appellant's clearances.

Conclusion: Colorica's clearances could not be included in the appellant's clearances.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order demanding duty on the basis of clubbing was unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded with the order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Clubbing of clearances requires proof of common control over production or sales, common management, or a special financial relationship amounting to financial flow back; mere family connection, shared premises, loans, guarantees, or business association is insufficient.

---