The Commission found that the price increase that took place on 1st July, 1985 companyld surely be taken to reflect partly the companyt of the gift.
The Commission should have numbered with advantage the expenditure incurred by the appellants in the year 1984 85 and 1985 86 on advertisement and marketing of Horlicks, namely, Rs.
2,000/ each for Hotline alliances and 1400 cash prizes of Rs.
Some of these companypons indicated that the purchasers of the bottles in which they were placed would get prizes.
The appellants manufacture and market companysumer products, including Horlicks.
Coupons were inserted in some bottles of Horlicks in the various pack sizes.
The prizes that were offered were 5 Hotline Colour TVs, 10 gift vouchers of Rs.
In September, 1985 the appellants advertised a scheme they called the Hidden Wealth Prize Offer.
100/ , Rs.
They explained the said scheme and stated that the expenditure thereon was Expenditure on prizes Rs.
Since he did number, the allegation ought to have been rejected.
52,250.00 Advertisements Rs.
45,312.32 Misc.
184,101.25 Published Material Rs.
Expenditure Rs.
The Commission, in the order under appeal, found from the price lists that, in respect of Horlicks and another product of the appellants called Boost, a price increase had taken place on 1st July, 1985, but the prices of the appellants other products Marmite, Pure Silvikrin, Silvikrin H.D. and Enos Salts till 31st January, 1986 had remained what they were on 1st October, 1984, 1st April, 1984, 1st April, 1984 and 1st May, 1985 respectively.
2,33,33,637 and Rs.
The requisite information was supplied by the appellants on 7th March, 1986.
50/ and Rs.
Bharucha, J. Under appeal is the judgment and order dated 11th May, 1989 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission .
