Anti-Profiteering — The facts of the case are that an application dated 05.02.2019 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, by the Applicant No.1, against the Respondent alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of supply of “Bajaj Majesty MX 20 Steam Iron” (hereinafter referred to as the product). Applicant No.1 further stated that the Respondent increased the MRP of the product from Rs. 1099/- to Rs. 1405/- or Rs. 1520/-, when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018, vide Notification No.18/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 27.07.2018. Applicant No.1 thus submitted that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018 and instead, increased the MRP of the product.

In the present case, we observe that the allegation of Applicant No.1 is that the Respondent had increased the MRP of the said product from Rs.1099/- to Rs.1405/- or Rs.1520/- in respect of supplies of the said product and after coming into force of Notification No. 18/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 27.07.2018 and he had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate to the recipients. In this context, we have perused the invoices of the product dated 06.07.2018 and 03.08.2018, and we observe that the base price of the product was kept unchanged same by the Respondent despite the reduction in the rate of tax and that he did not increase the base price after coming into force of Notification No. 18/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 27.07.2018.

As such, we do not find the present case to be a case of profiteering as had been alleged by the Applicant No.1. — Rahul Sharma, M/S. Local Circle India Pvt. Ltd., Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Bajaj Electricals Limited [2020] 22 TAXLOK.COM 027 (NAPA)