Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.

2019 (1) TMI 1368 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMI – Profiteering – Failure to reduce Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) – Petition against the decision of NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – CENVAT Credit – TRAN-2 credit – it is the contention of the petitioner that TRAN-2 credit was made available in March, 2018 – Area based exemption – Loss in North East Exemption being denied – case of respondents is that the documents on the amount refunded to Modern Trade Dealers have not been duly certified – Held that:- The petitioner is directed to deposit ₹ 90 crores with the Central Consumer Welfare Fund in two instalments of ₹ 50 crores and ₹ 40 crores which would be paid on or before 15th March, 2019 and 15th May, 2019 respectively – th

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Mr. Sahil Sood, Mr. Harshul Choudhary and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing counsel for R-2 to 4. O R D E R CM APPL. No. 1768/2019 (for exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No. 378/2019 & CM APPL. No. 1767/2019 (for stay) We have heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, has filed the following chart before us: S.No. Issue Amount(in crores) 1 Amount denied on extra grammage being claimed ₹ 27.77 2 Amount refunded to Modern Trade Dealers but being denied ₹ 26.37 3 Loss in North East Exemption b

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

credit was made available in March, 2018, therefore the impugned order is erroneous. On serial no. 3 i.e. loss in North- East Exemption, our attention was drawn to paragraph No. 69 of the petition to submit that the reduction in compensation has not been accounted for and has been treated as irrelevant. On sale of products to Modern Trade Dealers , evidence was produced but the insistence was that the consumer sale price by the customers of the Modern Trade Dealers should be produced. Learned counsel for the respondents has contested the submission and on the last aspect submitted that the documents on the amount refunded to Modern Trade Dealers have not been duly certified. In view of the submissions and contentions raised, we direct that

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Leave a Reply