Anti-Profiteering — Based on the above facts the profiteered amount is determined as Rs.89,73,16,384/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules as has been computed vide revised Annexure-16 of the supplementary Report dated 15.03.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. The Respondent is also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.73,14,83,660/- (Rs.89,73,16,383/- Rs.16,58,32,723/- as he has already deposited an amount of Rs.16,58,32,723/- in the CWF of the Central and the concerned State Government, as the recipients are not identifiable, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c ) of the above Rules alongwith 18% interest payable from the dates from which both the above amounts were realised by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of their deposit as per the revised Annexure-16 attached with the Report dated 15.03.2019.

Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the customers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus profiteered as per the explanation attached to Section 171 of the above Act. Therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, a show cause notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under the above sub-Section should not imposed on him. Accordingly, the notice dated 16.10.2019 vide which it was proposed to impose penalty on the Respondent under Section 29 and 122-127 of the above Act read with Rule 21 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 is hereby withdrawn to that extent. — Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs Vs. Nestle India Ltd. [2019] 19 TAXLOK.COM 017 (NAPA)