S.N.VARIAVA, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are against the judgment of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT) dated 10 September, 1996. This judgment is in respect of two companies namely, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and M/s. Maestro Motors Ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Sipani Automobiles Limited). Both these companies are manufacturers of motor cars. Apart from this common fact, the other facts are not identical. Even though CEGAT has disposed of the appeals by a common order, the cases of these two parties would have to be dealt with separately by this Court.
(2.) FIRST, the case of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. is being considered. On 23rd April, 1982 M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. applied for grant of an Industrial Licence for manufacturing passenger cars and light duty utility vehicles. They also entered into a joint venture agreement and collaboration with M/s. Suzuki Motors Company Ltd. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. imported from M/s. Suzuki Motors Company Ltd. two shipments i.e. 24 CKD packs (completely knocked down condition) and 48 CKD packs respectively of passenger car components. They filed two Bills of Entry bearing Nos. 118/345 and 1412/261 for clearing the goods which were claimed to be components of motor vehicles under Tariff Heading 8704 of the Customs Tariff. They also claimed benefit of Notification Nos. 29/83 and 29A/83. By two Orders dated 9th September, 1983 and 30th September, 1983, the Adjudicating Authority held that the imported components being complete cars in CKD packs had the essential character of the finished product and as such the consignments were to be treated as motor cars and not components. It was held that M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. was not entitled to the benefit of the Notifications as the Notifications were only for components. It was further held that in any case M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. had not complied with the conditions of the Notifications.
(3.) IN the appeal filed by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., the Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 30th April, 1985 held that the goods were component parts and not motor cars. It was also held that the company was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 29/83. Cegat has, by a 2 to 1 judgment, held that both the companies are entitled to benefit of the Notifications.;