https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360351 The SC held that various charges including packing, wear and tear, facility, service, delivery, collection, rental, repair and testing charges realized by assessees are liable to be included in determining value for excise duty under Section 4 of CEA 1944 as amended from July 1, 2000. The court ruled that price charged at clearance stage can include value additions beyond manufacturing cost and profit to make products suitable for sale. The amendment introducing CENVAT incorporated judicial precedents allowing such additions. The court clarified that observations in Acer India Ltd regarding transaction value being subject to Section 3 charging provisions applied only to composite items with dutiable and non-dutiable components. The SC affirmed that Bombay Tyre International Ltd correctly interpreted the law, holding that transaction value under Section 4(3)(d) statutorily incorporates additions to normal price previously held permissible, with no discernible difference between statutory transaction value and judicially evolved normal price concepts. en-us Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jul 2025 17:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360351 The SC held that various charges including packing, wear and tear, facility, service, delivery, collection, rental, repair and testing charges realized by assessees are liable to be included in determining value for excise duty under Section 4 of CEA 1944 as amended from July 1, 2000. The court ruled that price charged at clearance stage can include value additions beyond manufacturing cost and profit to make products suitable for sale. The amendment introducing CENVAT incorporated judicial precedents allowing such additions. The court clarified that observations in Acer India Ltd regarding transaction value being subject to Section 3 charging provisions applied only to composite items with dutiable and non-dutiable components. The SC affirmed that Bombay Tyre International Ltd correctly interpreted the law, holding that transaction value under Section 4(3)(d) statutorily incorporates additions to normal price previously held permissible, with no discernible difference between statutory transaction value and judicially evolved normal price concepts. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360351