https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88431 SC held that Schott India's volume-based discount scheme did not constitute anti-competitive behavior. The Court found no evidence of discriminatory pricing, exclusionary practices, or market foreclosure. The functional rebate and long-term supply agreement were deemed objectively justified. Critically, the Court emphasized that an effects-based harm analysis is essential under Section 4 of the Competition Act. The investigation was procedurally flawed due to denial of cross-examination, rendering the Competition Commission's original order invalid. The Appellate Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the complainant was ordered to pay Rs. 500,000 in costs. en-us Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:38 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88431 SC held that Schott India's volume-based discount scheme did not constitute anti-competitive behavior. The Court found no evidence of discriminatory pricing, exclusionary practices, or market foreclosure. The functional rebate and long-term supply agreement were deemed objectively justified. Critically, the Court emphasized that an effects-based harm analysis is essential under Section 4 of the Competition Act. The investigation was procedurally flawed due to denial of cross-examination, rendering the Competition Commission's original order invalid. The Appellate Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the complainant was ordered to pay Rs. 500,000 in costs. Highlights Law of Competition Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:38 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88431