9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn on the screenshot, pertained to the stock of the goods carrying an MRP of ₹ 1099/-, which was lying with the Respondent and that the Respondent has himself stated that once the old stock was liquidated, the MRP of ₹ 1520/- was updated on the website. But since the new stock carrying the MPR of ₹ 1520/- had already circulated in the market, the website of the Respondent showed MRP of ₹ 1099/- till July, 2018 - the Applicant No. 1, vide his email dated 30.09.2019, has also agreed with the DGAP's conclusion recorded in his Report dated 06.09.2019. The present case is not a fit case of profiteering as had been alleged by the Applicant No. 1 - the allegation of the Applicant No. 1 is not tenable and therefore the application alleging violation of provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 is hereby dismissed. - Case No. 11/2020 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2020 - SH. B.N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, SH. J.C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER ORDER 1. The present Report dated 06.09.2019, has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y vide its order dated 19.06.2019 in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The period of the investigation is from 27.07.2018 to 31.03.2019. 6. The Respondent had replied to the Notice issued by the DGAP vide letters/e-mails dated 18.04.2019, 23.04.2019, 10.05.2019, 20.05.2019, 12.06.2019, 25.07.2019, 13.08.2019 and 03.09.2019 vide which he had stated that consequent to GST rate reduction w.e.f. 27.07.2018, the Respondent had reduced the MRP of the product from ₹ 1520/- to ₹ 1405/-. The Respondent had also submitted copies of the advertisement given by him in different newspapers in order to spread awareness regarding GST rate reduction on the goods. The Respondent further submitted before the DGAP that the Applicant No. 1 had submitted only screenshots taken from the website and there was no other evidence like tax invoice to substantiate his claim. The Respondent also contended that notwithstanding the screenshot that showed the MRP of the impugned product as ₹ 1099/-, it remained a fact that the MRP of the impugned product changed from ₹ 1099/- from June 2015 itself, though some old stock of the said product, carrying MRP of ₹ 1099/-, wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o claimed confidentiality of all the data/information furnished by him, in terms of Rule 130 of the Rules. 11. The DGAP after examining the application, the various replies of the Respondent and the documents/evidence on record observed that the main issue for determination was as to whether the rate of GST on the products supplied by the Respondent was reduced w.e.f. 27.07.2018, and if so, whether the Respondent had passed on the commensurate benefit of such reduction in GST rate to the recipients, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The DGAP also observed that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had reduced the GST rate on the electro-thermic appliances of a kind used for domestic purposes from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018, vide Notification No. 18/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018. The DGAP further stated that Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as follows any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Thus, the legal requirement was abundantly clear that in the event of the benefit of ITC or r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and exempted supplies) of the product during the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, as furnished by the Respondent, observed that the Respondent had not increased the base price of the product Bajaj Majesty MX 20 Steam Iron when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018. However, the Respondent had increased the base price of the product from ₹ 676/- to ₹ 696/- in the month of October, 2018 as the Respondent's business practice was that of revising the base price of the product twice a year, once at the start of the year and second generally near October-November based on festival season. Thus, since there was no profiteering in the complained product, the scope of investigation had been limited to the product mentioned in the application only. The DGAP thus stated that the allegation of profiteering by Applicant No. 1 by way of increasing the base prices of the products w.e.f. 27.07.2018 was not sustainable against the Respondent and that Section 171(1) of the COST Act, 2017 has not been contravened. 14. The above Report was received on 09.09.2019 and was considered by the Authority in its meeting held on 11.09.2019 and it was decided to hear th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
