9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that the Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering vide the minutes of its meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of Peps Spring Koil Bornell Normal Maroon 75x60x6" Mattress (HSN Code 94042910), by not passing on the benefit of reduction of GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate). Thus it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the base price of the product stood reduced as detailed above, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not contravened and the allegation of profiteering by the Respondent is not established. 5. The above Report was considered by the Authority in its meeting held on 03.10.2018 and it was decided that as there was no private applicant, the Kerala Screening Committee may be asked to appear before the Authority on 18.10.2018, which was further extended to31.10.2018. Smt. A. Shainamol, Additional Commissioner, SGST, Kerala appeared on behalf of the Applicant No. 1. During the hearing she agreed to the Report submitted by the DGAP. 6. The Authority considered the Report again in its meeting dated 05.12.2018 and decided to send ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... established that the base price (excluding GST) of the product was also reduced from Rs. 7986/- to Rs. 7,034/- after offering a discount of Rs. 1,006/- which is more than the commensurate rate reduction. As the Net Base Price (excluding tax) of the above product has been reduced by the Respondent, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable. 11. Based on the above facts it is clear that the Respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence we find no merit in the application forwarded by the Applicant No. 1 and the impugned application is accordingly dismissed. 12. A copy of this order be sent to both the Applicants and the Respondent free of cost. File of the case be consigned after compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
