ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.
2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of glass jars, filed Price List No. 148/87-88, dated 27-6-1988 in Part II for “500 gms. Maltova Glass Jars” declaring the assessable value as Rs. 2,700/- per 1,000 bottles to be sold to M/s. Jagjit Industries Ltd. Purchase Order dated 19-4-1988 submitted along with the price list showed that besides the price referred to in the price list, the appellant was to receive Rs. 60,000/- from the buyers towards design and development charges for 5,00,000 bottles contracted for supply. Show cause notice dated 15-7-1988 was issued stating that proportionate design and development charges should be included in the assessable value and proposing approval of the price list on that basis. Though the appellant resisted the show cause notice, the Assistant Collector passed the order approving the price list including the proportionate design and development charges in the assessable value. This order, having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.
3. In the Memo, of Appeal it is stated that bottles are manufactured according to the design and specification of different buyers. Whenever any customer requires a new type of bottle, he requests the appellant to manufacture a few bottles for his approval before placing the order and for this purpose the appellant has to carry out design and development work for which substantial expenditure has to be incurred. Appellant undertakes design and development work only on the customers agreeing to pay charges therefor. Order is placed only after bottle has been developed and sample shown to the prospective buyer. From these averments it is clear that drawing and designing charges in respect of the product are includible in the assessable value. [See Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. -1996 (88) E.L.T. 238 (Tribunal)]. We therefore find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.