Per Justice U.L. Bhat :

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 M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.

2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of self adhesive tapes and cloth based tapes, was filing price lists in Part II and on approval of the same clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty. It was found that during the period from 1.4.84 to 5.8.87,appellant was recovering Rs.200/- per tape towards development charges for art work done and printing on self adhesive tapes by raising debit notes separately. This element should have been included in the assessable value and was suppressed in the price lists and there was misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. Show cause notice dated 3.5.89 was issued with the above averments and proposing demand of duty and imposition of penalty. Appellant contended that wherever customers desired printing to be done, a block containing the name and other particulars required by the customers would be obtained from outside and printing done on the tape as per the directions of the customers, that this would be done after tape was manufactured and would amount to post manufacturing activity and therefore, the amount realised on this count could not form part of the assessable value. Overruling this contention, Additional Collector confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/-. This order is now challenged.

3. In the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Indore [1996 (13) RLT 4 = 1996(82) ELT 399(T)], the appellant manufactured mill steel pipes and tubes, cleared a part as black pipes and tubes and another part as pipes and tubes subsequently galvanised. The dispute was whether the cost of galvanisation was to be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal held that the article would become improved in quality and value by galvanisation, that while galvanisation will not amount to manufacture, it enriched the quality and enhanced the value and the cost thereof should be a component in the assessable value. In Kutty Flush Doors & Furniture Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras [1997 (20) RLT 691 = 1997 (93) ELT 766 (T) a manufacturer of flush doors carried out certain processes in regard to a part of flush doors produced. The processes consisted of attaching kick plate, vision hole cutting and external lipping. It was held that these processes enriched the value of the goods prior to the clearance from the factory and the value of the door as enhanced by these processes should form the basis for determining the assessable value. Following these decisions, we hold that the amount collected for the process of printing the tapes should be included in the assessable value since that can be regarded as having enriched the value of the tapes. We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.