No action can be taken if no specific evidence of profiteering: NAA

Sh. Raman Khaira Vs M/s. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

We have carefully considered the Report filed by the Applicant No. 2 as well as the submissions made by the Respondent No. 1 and it is obvious from the narration of the facts stated above that the investigation conducted in the matter by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent No.1 could not establish profiteering for want of credible evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of section 171 of thePlease become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.