Reviewed by CA Nikhil Gupta · Last reviewed 10 October 2026
Turn mould cavities, cycle seconds, scrap, machine hours and resin price into a defensible per-piece quote.
Use observed, contract-specific inputs. Illustration values are editable, not quoted market benchmarks.
Replace the illustrative inputs with records from your own operations. All calculations run in your browser; no input values are uploaded by this page.
Turn mould cavities, cycle seconds, scrap, machine hours and resin price into a defensible per-piece quote. The sample inputs are designed to demonstrate the relationship between costs, recoveries and throughput. The result changes instantly when you calculate with your own values. It is not a market-rate quote or government-approved valuation.
The model starts with the combined available machine-hours of all parallel moulding machines and applies separate availability and performance factors. It then rounds production down to complete shots. Multiplied by cavity count, those shots yield moulded pieces; the entered reject percentage reduces pieces that can be sold. The calculation makes downtime and rejects visible instead of burying them in an unexplained cost-per-piece assumption.
Each shot consumes the net plastic in every moulded cavity plus runner material. Resin is charged on this gross weight, so the rejects also absorb material expenditure. A runner recovery assumption generates a credit only where the waste runner is sold for cash at the entered rate. The same credit must not be claimed where internally recovered material is substituted for virgin resin already deducted from purchase quantities. Rejected products are not assumed saleable or recoverable unless the commercial model is changed.
Resin, measured electricity and operators assigned per running machine-hour, and packaging per good unit are cost drivers. The setup charge and period overhead are separately entered lump sums. Electricity demand charges and standby labour not captured by the hourly variables belong in the overhead input. The mould/tool investment is allocated over its own anticipated lifetime in good pieces. Without disciplined separation, a large order may appear profitable simply because fixed overhead was excluded.
If the full unit cost is ₹12 and a company seeks a 25% gross margin on sale price, its required sale price is ₹12 ÷ (1 − 0.25) = ₹16. A 25% markup produces ₹15, or only a 20% margin. This distinction is relevant to small fabrication vendors bidding to automotive, consumer-products, industrial and packaging customers. The result is a starting quote rather than an agreed commercial price.
Use an observed cycle time for the particular resin, tool, machine and cooling requirement. Validate cavity fill balance, planned mould changes, cavitation actually enabled, startup purges and colour change wastage. Compare machine logs, shift reports and rejected quantities. Published production standards may require practical rather than theoretical capacity when absorbing fixed costs; consult applicable cost-accounting guidance before use for reporting.
Test a slower cycle, a lower availability percentage, two additional percentage points of rejection, and a 10% increase in raw-material price separately. If the quote fails under modest material volatility, use contract price-escalation language or agreed polymer-index pass-throughs rather than promising a fixed price unsupported by procurement terms. The model does not assume that all theoretical capacity can be sold.
For an internal cost review, retain resin invoices and grade, issue slips, shot count and machine log, cavity utilisation, quality inspection counts, runner weight and recovered-scrap invoice, power meter records, payroll allocation, and approved overhead basis. Link tool-life estimates to the mould maintenance register. These records reduce disputes over whether scrap or operator cost was counted twice and make quote revisions traceable.
The calculation excludes GST classification, statutory depreciation, financing interest, inventory valuation effects, contract warranty obligations and customer inspection acceptance. There is no automatic determination under the Companies Act, cost audit or income-tax law. Businesses subject to cost-record or cost-audit rules need product-specific review by a qualified professional and confirmation of current official standards.
No. Cycle time estimates shots; resin usage, rejection, setup, machine hours, tooling allocation, packaging and other overheads also determine the quote.
No. A 25% margin on selling price requires dividing cost by 0.75. Markup instead multiplies cost by 1.25 and yields a 20% sale margin.
No. Purchased material includes gross runner mass and a separate credit reflects only the value of recovered runner sold. Do not enter internally reused regrind as an additional scrap-sale credit.
No. Sale prices and costs are illustrative ex-tax figures. Classification and tax treatment require review of the actual product and supplies.
Tooling cost here is allocated per expected good part. It is a costing allocation rather than cash paid each period; financing and statutory depreciation require separate schedules.
Sources explain the calculation conventions and rules referred to above. Notifications and standards change; confirm on the official site before you file, book or advise.
Educational working tool. Results follow the scope and assumptions described on this page and the figures you enter; they are not accounting, audit, tax, legal, investment or financing advice. Treatment depends on facts, contracts and the law or standard in force for the relevant period, so reconcile to your records and consult a qualified professional before you rely on a result.