P. V. Narayanan Vs MRF Corp. Ltd. (NAA)
The DGAP vide Para 15 of his Report dated 27.02.2020 has also stated that “as per the outward sales data submitted by the Noticee, it has been observed that approximately 90 products were not sold before 27.07.2018 and accordingly they are construed as new products launched by the Noticee post GST rate reduction and therefore, they have been kept out of the purview of anti-profiteering.” In this connection perusal of the Report dated 27.02.2020 of the DGAP shows that it has not been mentioned in it whether any effort was made to examine the details of the outward taxable supplies of the Respondent made during the previous months of May 2018, April 2018, March, 2018 and so on to confirm that the above 90 products have not been sold by the Respondent in the pre rate reduction period. These details were also not summoned by the DGAP vide NOI dated 25.06.2019. Therefore, the DGAP is required to conduct fresh investigation to ascertain that the above 90 product have been launched post 27.07.2018 and they have not been sold during the above period.
42. Based on the above findings and without going in to the other merits of the case, the Report dated 27.02.2020 furnished by the DGAP cannot be accepted and accordingly, the DGAP is directed to conduct further investigation on the issues mentioned above, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (4) read with Section 171 (2) of the above Act and submit fresh Report under Rule 129 (6).
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 27.02.2020 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director 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 present case are that an application was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of two products viz. “SP EP Primer Grey” and “Thinner for Finish” (here-in-after referred to as the subject goods). The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering in its meeting held on 13.12.2018 and was forwarded to the DGAP for detailed investigation as per the provisions of Rule 129 (1), which was received by the DGAP on 02.05.2019. As complete information related to the complaint was not received by the DGAP along with the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a letter bearing No. D-22011/AP/11/19/1232 dated 29.05.2019 was sent to the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-profiteering), Standing Committee to provide the complete details/information in respect of the application. The Assistant Commissioner (Anti-profiteering), Standing Committee vide his letter No. GST/Delhi North/ Anti-profiteering/Misc/01/2019/6153 dated 04.06.2019 had forwarded the complete information related to the application, which was received by the DGAP on 10.06.2019.
2. It had been alleged by the Applicant No. 1 in his complaint that the prices of the subject goods, supplied by the Respondent had remained unchanged or were increased, after reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018, vide Notification No. 18/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018. and the benefit of tax rate reduction was not passed on by the Respondent to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices.
3. On receipt of the aforesaid complete documents from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 10.06.2019 the DGAP had issued Notice for initiation of Investigation (N01) under Rule 129 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 to the Respondent on 25.06.2019, calling upon the Respondent to submit his reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of reduction in the GST rate w.e.f. 27.07.2018, had not been passed on by him to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices and if so, to suo moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply as well as to furnish all documents in support of his reply.
4. Further, vide the above NOI sent by the DGAP the Respondent was afforded an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/information which formed the basis of the said NOI, during the period from 01.07.2019 to 03.07.2019. However, the Respondent did not avail of the said opportunity. The present investigation was carried out by the DGAP from 27.07.2018 to 31.05.2019.
5. The time limit to complete the investigation was extended up to 09.03.2020 by this Authority vide its order dated 02.12.2019 in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
6. In response to the NOI dated 25.06.2019 issued by the DGAP, the Respondent has submitted his replies vide letters/e-mails dated
