ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Both these appeals are taken up together as they arise from the same impugned order passed by the authorities below by which the demand of duty of Rs. 21,254/- and Rs. 4,445/- along with penalty of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- on M/s. Sree Andal & Co. and M/s. Andal Tapes & Co. have been imposed on the ground that the value of clearance of both the appellants are liable to be clubbed together for the purpose of availment of exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93 in view of the common premises, single electricity connection and that the sole proprietress of the tape unit is a minor, on whose behalf the father is authorised to act and he is a partner in the engineering unit namely M/s. Sree Andal & Company.
2. The appellant before the authorities below contended that they are entitled to benefit of the notification in question inasmuch as they have been licensed separately under Central Excise Act and there is no flow back of money. They have also argued that the partnership firm consists of three partners and whereas M/s. Andal Tapes & Company is a proprietary firm, though the proprietor is a minor his work is being looked after by the father of the minor. Both the units have independent status before the Sales Tax, Income Tax and Central Excise authorities and before the banks. The accounts in respect of two units are separate, the building and machinery of the tape unit is owned by the appellant and has been leased to M/s. Andal Tapes & Company on rental basis. Accordingly they have submitted that there is no justification for clubbing the clearances of the two factories.
3. The above contentions of the appellant were not accepted by the authorities below and held against them and hence the present appeal. We have heard Shri J. Narayanasamy, Adv. for the appellants and Shri P. De-valadu, DR for the Revenue.
4. After going through the impugned orders we find that there is basically no evidence on record to show that the two units are in fact one and the same. The Revenue has not rebutted the appellant’s contention that they are separately registered in Central Excise laws, with the Income Tax, Sales Tax authorities and their bank accounts are separately maintained. There is also no rebuttal to the evidence to the fact that though both the units are situated in the same premises, yet they are separate and the entrance is by different gates. Merely because the father of the proprietor of M/s. Andal Tapes & Company is one of the partners in the other partnership firm is not sufficient to hold that the two units are in fact one and their clearances are to be clubbed. It has been repeatedly decided by various judicial pronouncements that financial intermingling of funds and interest of both the units in each other is the prime factor for establishing that the units are in fact one so as to justify the clubbing. No evidence of any financial connection between the two companies have been brought on record. As such we are of the view that both the manufacturing units are separate having their own legal independent status and there is no justification for clubbing the clearances of the two units. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals with consequential relief, if any. Thus both the appeals are allowed.