JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such arise out of impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Tribunal"), all these appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeals as well as Rectification Application submitted by the appellants herein and has confirmed the Order In Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority and has confirmed the penalty imposed on the appellants of Tax Appeal Nos. 295 of 2017 and 296 of 2017, the appellants have preferred present appeals with the following proposed questions of law. "1. Whether the orders made by the Appellate Tribunal on the Appeals and ROM Application suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice and also suffer from vice of non application of mind since facts and evidence on record of the case have not been considered ? 2. Whether demand of duty from the appellant firm for the goods manufactured and cleared by other manufactures by clubbing clearances of such manufactures with the appellant firms with penalty, has been valid in law and in facts of this case ? Whether clubbing of clearance of M/s. Hitech Engineering and Fabricators is valid when no findings about this firm are recorded in the Orders by the Appellate Tribunal ? 3. Whether the orders made by the Appellate Tribunal on the Appeals and ROM Application are illegal when it is not considered nor decided by the Appellate Tribunal whether the Revenue had authority in law in invoking extended period of limitation in the facts of this case ? 4. Whether the orders of the Appellate Tribunal upholding personal penalties on appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are legally valid and correct ?" 3. The facts leading to the present appeals are in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That the assessee M/s. Chamuda Engineering Works (hereinafter referred to as "CEW") a proprietress firm, of which, one Smt. Jasuben Babubhai Mistry wife of Shri Babubhai Mistry, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Casting Machinery used in the Sugar Mills, Bio-gas Plants and Paper Mills. That the assessee M/s. Chamuda Engineering Works (hereinafter referred to as "CEW") a proprietress firm, of which, one Smt. Jasuben Babubhai Mistry wife of Shri Babubhai Mistry, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Casting Machinery used in the Sugar Mills, Bio-gas Plants and Paper Mills. There were other firms M/s. Hitech Engineers and Fabricators (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. Hitech") the proprietor of which was one Shri Umeshbhai Mistry son of Shri Babubhai Mistry and M/s. Bhavani Engineering Works (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. BEW"), of which, Shri Babubhai Mistry was proprietor and one M/s. Chamunda Engineering Private Limited, a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (Smt. Jasuben B Mistry and Shri Babubhai M Mistry, were Directors). All the aforesaid firms were situated in three different sheds viz. Plot Nos. 79, 80 and 81, Mahalaxmi Industrial Estate, Vatva, Ahmedabad claimed to be engaged in the manufacture of the same product. That on 07.02.2005 the Preventive Officer of the Central Excise, Ahmedabad- I, visited the said premises. It was noticed that the aforesaid three firms and one company were operating from the same premises. It was further noticed that there was a common entrance and exist as well as common land, building, plant and machinery, raw material, electricity, telephone, fax, office, office equipments etc. The Officer recorded the statement of Shri Babubhai Mistry and Shri Umesh Mistry on different dates. The Officer also prepared the panchnama on 07.02.2005. They were recorded the statement of their employee Shri Mahendrabhai V Shah and also statement of Smt. Jasuben Mistry. 3.2. That thereafter, show cause notice dated 20.06.2007 came to be issued by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad- I proposing the demand of duty of Rs. 22,06,067/- along with interest and to impose penalty on the assessee (CEW) by clubbing clearance value of M/s. BEW and M/s. CEPL and M/s. Hitech. It was also proposed to impose penalty upon Shri Babubhai Mistry Director of CEPL and also the proprietor of M/s. BEW, Smt. Jasuben, proprietor of the assessee and Director of M/s. CEPL, M/s. Hitech and M/s. BEW. That after giving fullest opportunity and considering the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 22,06,067/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the assessee. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed penalties of Rs. That after giving fullest opportunity and considering the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 22,06,067/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the assessee. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed penalties of Rs. 2 Lakh each on (1) M/s. Chamuda Engineering Pvt. Ltd.; (2) Shri Babubhai Mistry-Director of M/s. CEPL and Proprietor of M/s. BEW; (3) Smt. Jasuben B Mistry- Proprietor of the Assessee and Director of M/s. CEPL; (4) M/s. Hitech; (5) M/s. BEW. 3.3. That feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the OIO dated 18.01.2008, the original assessee as well as Smt. Jasuben and others preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). That the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Surat-I dismissed the said appeals and confirmed the Order In Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 3.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the original assessee, Smt. Jasuben and Shri Babubhai and others preferred appeals before the learned Tribunal. That by impugned common judgment and order, learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeals preferred by the original assessee and confirmed the OIO and duty demand of Rs. 22,06,067/- along with interest and penalty. However, reduced the penalty imposed on Shri Babubhai Mistry and Smt. Jasuben Mistry to Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. That the learned Tribunal deleted/set aside the penalty imposed on M/s. CEPL and M/s. Hitech, M/s. BEW. That thereafter, original assessee preferred Rectification Application before the learned Tribunal along with additional evidence to show that other firms having their separate plant and machinery. However, considering the fact that the documents which were placed before the Tribunal placed for the first time in the Rectification, were not even placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and even before the lower authorities, the learned Tribunal rejected the said Rectification by observing that such evidence cannot be accepted before the Tribunal at belated stage. 3.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in confirming the demand of duty and interest penalty upon the original assessee and in imposing the penalty and in confirming the penalty imposed upon Shri Babubhai Mistry and Smt. Jasuben Mistry (though reduced), the original assessee M/s. CEW and Smt. Jasuben Mistry and Shri Baubhai Mistry have preferred present appeal with the aforesaid proposed question of law. 4. 4. Heard Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned advocate for the appellants. 4.1. Shri Gupta, learned advocate for the appellants- original assessee has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in confirming the demand of duty upon the assessee. 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Gupta, learned advocate for the appellants that as other firms have having their separate entity and were having their separate plant and machinery, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in confirming the Order In Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand of duty on clubbing of clearance value of other firms with the assessee firm. 4.3. It is further submitted by Shri Gupta, learned advocate for the appellants that learned Tribunal has materially erred in not properly appreciating that all the units viz. (1) M/s. Chamuda Engineering Pvt. Ltd.; (2) Shri Babubhai Mistry- Director of M/s. CEPL and Proprietor of M/s. BEW; (3) Smt. Jasuben B Mistry-Proprietor of the Assessee and Director of M/s. CEPL; (4) M/s. Hitech; (5) M/s. BEW were holding separate Sales Tax registration, District Industrial Central Registration issued by the State Government and also registrations under the Shops and Establishment Act. It is submitted that all the units were separate income tax, assessee showing their own turn over. That all the units issued invoices separately. It is submitted that therefore in absence of any further evidence on financial flow back between the units, clubbing of clearances is not permissible. 4.4. It is further submitted by Shri Gupta, learned advocate for the appellants that all the authorities below have proceeded on the basis that other units have no machineries. It is submitted that however the assessee produced the list of machineries of all the four units with the supporting bills, before the learned Tribunal and along with Rectification Application. It is submitted that however, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not considering those documents and has materially erred in rejecting the Rectification Application. Making above submission, it is requested to admit/allow the present appeals. 5. We have heard Shri Gupta, learned advocate for the appellants at length. We have also considered the order passed by the authorities below as well as learned Tribunal in detail. 6. Making above submission, it is requested to admit/allow the present appeals. 5. We have heard Shri Gupta, learned advocate for the appellants at length. We have also considered the order passed by the authorities below as well as learned Tribunal in detail. 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the all the authorities below that other firms/units were not having their own independent plant and machinery, electricity connection, raw material etc. There are concurrent findings of fact on record by all the authorities below that all the firms were/units were running in the same premises having a common entrance and exist. It has also been found that even one of the firm i.e. M/s. Hitech surrendered his registration under the Central Excise Act and was availed the benefit under the SSI exemption. That thereafter, having found that all other firms/units are dummy and therefore, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty on clubbing of the clearances value of other units/firms (which were found to be dummy) with that of the assessee. The order passed by the authorities below cannot be said to be contrary to evidence on record and/or finding recorded by the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse and therefore, no interference of this Court is called for. 7. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in rejecting the Rectification Application and in not considering the documents produced to show that plant and machineries were purchased by M/s. BEW and M/s. CEPL, It is submitted that if those documents would have been considered, the learned Tribunal would not have even confirmed the demand of duty, which was solely on clubbing of clearances value of other firms with the assessee which was on the premises that other firms/units were not having their own plant and machineries. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that no such documents/bills were produced either before the Adjudicating Authority nor even before the Commissioner (Appeals). The same came to be produced for the first time before the learned Tribunal. Even the said documents were not produced at the time of search. Thus, the said documents were produced for the first time before the learned Tribunal at a belated stage. The same came to be produced for the first time before the learned Tribunal. Even the said documents were not produced at the time of search. Thus, the said documents were produced for the first time before the learned Tribunal at a belated stage. It is not the case on behalf of the assessee that those documents were not available and/or misplaced at the time of adjudication. The documents which were produced, were related to period of 1990 to 2001. The search was conducted in the year 2005 and even Order In Original came to be passed in the year 2008. No such documents were produced till than and as observed herein above the same came to be produced for the first time before the learned Tribunal, which can be said to be an afterthought and to get out of the findings recorded by the authorities below that other units/firms were not having their independent, separate plant and machineries. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the Rectification Application. 8. Now, so far as the appeals preferred by Shri Babubhai Mistry and Smt. Jasuben Mistry are concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has as such reduced the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively from Rs. 2 lakh imposed upon them. Smt. Jasuben was the proprietor of M/s. CEW upon whom the demand of duty has been confirmed. Similarly, Shri Babubhai Mistry was Director of M/s. CEPL. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed in imposing the penalty upon them. As observed herein above, on the contrary the learned Tribunal has as such reduced the amount of penalty. Under the circumstances, both the appeals preferred by Shri Babubhai Mistry and Smt. Jasuben Mistry deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the appeals fail and same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.