Anti-Profiteering — The allegation that M/s Raymond Ltd. had not passed on the benefit of tax reduction from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 on 'After‑Shave Lotion Park Avenue Good Morning 50 ml" which was supplied to M/s Big Bazaar, Inderlok (M/s Future Retail Ltd.) on 08.11.2017 under Purchase Order No. 8114997697 with MRP of Rs. 115/-, on 19.12.2017 under Purchase Order No. 8115407972 with the same MRP of Rs. 115/-and on 12.06.2018 under Purchase Order No. 4518098598 again with the same MRP of Rs. 115/-.

There appears to be no reasonable ground to doubt the recommendation of the Standing Committee made vide its proceedings dated 11.03.2017 keeping in view the fact that after detailed investigation it has been apparently found by the DGAP that both the Respondents have not passed on the benefit of rate reduction and have violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act, although the final verdict on the culpability of the Respondents is required to be determined after they have been heard in detail on all the issues involved in the present proceedings. Therefore, it is apparent that the Standing Committee prima facie had accurate and adequate evidence available before it to refer the complaint to the DGAP for detailed investigation as per the provisions of Rule 129 (1) and it has rightly referred the above complaint to the DGAP for investigation. Hence, the contention of the Respondents made on this ground is not correct and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. Accordingly, it is held that the reference made by the Standing Committee to the DOAP under Rule 129 (1) was legally correct and the investigation conducted by the DGAP on such reference is well within the ambit of Rule 129 of the above Rules.— Rahul Sharma Vs. J.K. Helene Curtis Ltd. & M/s Shree Sai Kripa Marketing [2020] 21 TAXLOK.COM 041 (NAPA)