ORDER : 1. M/s Superior Products, respondent No.1 herein and M/s. Superior Pets (P) Ltd. respondent No. 3 herein, which are small scale industries and which had been granted SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 16/97 dated 1.4.1997 and 8 and 9/98 dated 2.6.1998 were issued two show cause notices to show cause as to why clearance of both the units be not clubbed together as both the units had common Directors and that one person was looking after the affairs of both the units. It was alleged that second unit was created only to get the loan and did not have even complete machinery in its premises to manufacture the final product. They were also asked to show cause as to why packing charges for the goods which were produced by them be not included in the assessable value. 2. The assessing officer confirmed the demand, aggrieved against which the respondents filed separate appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly accepted the appeal. It was held that both the units be clubbed together for the purpose of SSI exemption. Insofar as packing charges are concerned, it was held by the Commissioner that packing charges could not be included in the assessable value as the material for the same had been supplied by the buyers to the assessee free of cost. 3. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, both the revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by its impugned order has accepted the appeals filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. 4. Hence, revenue is before us in these appeals. 5. Tribunal in its order has recorded a finding that accounts of both the units are managed separately. That they have separate capital, premises, machinery and labour and carrying out separate operations. That they are separate units. These findings are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with and, therefore, the same are confirmed. 6. Insofar as packing charges are concerned, Tribunal has held that this point stands concluded against the revenue by a judgment of this Court in the case of Hindustan Polymers vs. CCE, 1990 (26) ECR 153 (SC) : (1989) 4 SCC 323 . These findings are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with and, therefore, the same are confirmed. 6. Insofar as packing charges are concerned, Tribunal has held that this point stands concluded against the revenue by a judgment of this Court in the case of Hindustan Polymers vs. CCE, 1990 (26) ECR 153 (SC) : (1989) 4 SCC 323 . After going through the judgment in the case of Hindustan Polymers (supra), we are satisfied that this point is squarely concluded against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The judgment of this Court in Hindustan Polymers (supra) has been confirmed by a subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Jauss Polymers Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut, (2005) 10 SCC 672 . We endorse the finding of the Tribunal on this point. 7. The Appeals are dismissed accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.