https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123153 The Supreme Court distinguished excise valuation from sales tax turnover and held that the notional amortised cost of moulds and toolings supplied free by the buyer could not be added to the sale price of auto components under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Excise law permits inclusion of the apportioned value of buyer-supplied tools, dies and moulds under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, but the trade tax regime taxes the agreed consideration for transfer of goods and contains no similar deeming provision. Because the assessee did not incur that cost, the amortisation amount was not part of sale price under Section 3 of the 1948 Act. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123153 The Supreme Court distinguished excise valuation from sales tax turnover and held that the notional amortised cost of moulds and toolings supplied free by the buyer could not be added to the sale price of auto components under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Excise law permits inclusion of the apportioned value of buyer-supplied tools, dies and moulds under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, but the trade tax regime taxes the agreed consideration for transfer of goods and contains no similar deeming provision. Because the assessee did not incur that cost, the amortisation amount was not part of sale price under Section 3 of the 1948 Act. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123153