Case Law Details
Daanish Electricals & Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs Eros Elevators & Escalators Pvt. Ltd. (Competition Commission of India)
The Applicant No. 1 has raised several contentions in the matter on which findings of the Commission are as under:-
i. The Applicant No. 1 has claimed that the Respondent’s scope of activities was Design, Manufacturer, Supply & Installation of Elevators & Escalators as per his ISO 9001: 2015 Certificate No.: UQ-2019110909. Perusal of the above Certificate shows that the Respondent has been issued a Certificate of Registration by a United Kingdom based agency in which he has been shown as manufacture of the lifts. However, during the course of the investigation it has been found by the DGAP that the Respondent had not manufactured the lifts which he has supplied to the Applicant No. 1. He had procured the material from the other manufacturers locally and had supplied the same and installed the lifts. Hence the above claim of the Applicant is not correct.
ii. The above Applicant has also claimed that the Respondent had increased the base price in the post GST period and had profiteered an amount of Rs. 2,93,502/-. However, perusal of the initial agreement dated 04.07.2015 executed in the pre GST period and the Quotation Nos. QT41092_R4 dated 04.07.2015, QT52365_R1 dated 3.05.2015 and QT52268_R2 dated 30.05.2015, shows that the base price for the installation of both the lifts was Rs. 23,06,499/- and the total tax applicable was Rs. 2,93,502/- and hence the total price was Rs. 26,00,000/-. Therefore, the total pre-GST tax was 12.72%. However, as per the subsequent agreement dated 18.05.2018 which was executed in the post GST period the base price of both the lifts was Rs. 22,03,390/- which shows that the Respondent had reduced his base price in the post GST period inspite of the fact the rate of tax in the post GST period had been increased to 18%. Therefore, there is no question of the Respondent having profiteered and hence both the above allegations of the Applicant No. 1 are incorrect and untenable.
iii. The Applicant No. 1 has also stated that the Respondent had claimed credit of Excise Duty on the manufactured components of lifts, the benefit of which he was required to pass on to him. In this regard, the Commission finds that the Respondent had not manufactured the lifts, hence he was not required to pay any Central Excise Duty on the same. The Respondent had procured the material from other manufactures locally who were liable to pay the Central Excise Duty on which no ITC was available in the pre GST period. Accordingly, the Respondent has neither paid Central Excise Duty nor got any ITC on the same at the time of purchasing the material for the lifts in the pre GST period .It is also revealed from the documents submitted by the Respondent that he has also not availed any Transitional Credit of Excise Duty on the material lying in his stock as on 30.06.2017 at the time of closure of the earlier tax regime. It is also apparent from the Respondent’s letter dated 09.06.2017 addressed to the Applicant No. 1 that the material was ready with him and since the GST was going to be implemented w.e.f. 01.07.2017 due to which the rate of tax may increase he should lift the material immediately and hand over the site. However, the above Applicant had neither made balance payment nor handed over the site for installation of lifts and therefore the Respondent could not complete the installation before the implementation of GST. Accordingly, the above claim of the Applicant is wrong and frivolous.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
