Clubbing of clearances and Rule 209A penalty upheld where units were under common control and goods were knowingly handled.

Clearances of closely inter-linked units may be clubbed where evidence shows common family ownership, shared management, common use of machinery and records, and substantial mutuality of interest; on that basis, small scale exemption can be denied and duty demand sustained. A person concerned in booking, transporting, removing, or purchasing excisable goods, with knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation, falls within Rule 209A and may be penalised. The impugned order therefore sustained both the clubbing-based duty confirmation and the penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances of the units were liable to be clubbed and the benefit of small scale exemption denied, resulting in confirmation of duty demand; (ii) Whether penalty on M/s. Cine Lamp under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances of the units were liable to be clubbed and the benefit of small scale exemption denied, resulting in confirmation of duty demand.

Analysis: The units were found to be inter-linked and inter-connected, owned and controlled by the same family, with common management features, shared business interests, common use of machinery and records, and substantial mutuality of interest in each other's business. The manufacturer failed to dislodge the finding that complete cinema projectors were manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. The denial of small scale exemption and the resultant duty computation were therefore upheld.

Conclusion: The duty demand was rightly confirmed, and the assessee's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty on M/s. Cine Lamp under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed that M/s. Cine Lamp was involved in booking and transporting the cinema projector equipment through a transport concern, establishing that it was concerned in acquiring possession, transporting, removing, or purchasing excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. This brought the case within the scope of Rule 209A.

Conclusion: The penalty on M/s. Cine Lamp was correctly imposed and upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was affirmed in full, with the duty demand and penalty against M/s. Cine Lamp sustained and the appeals rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where evidence establishes inter-connected and mutually interested units under common control, clearances may be clubbed to deny small scale exemption, and a person concerned with the transport or removal of excisable goods liable to confiscation is punishable under Rule 209A.

---