ORDER : 1. On two charges, certain proceedings under Section 10 read with Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 were initiated by a notice dated 5-7-1984. The two charges read as follows: “AND WHEREAS the respondents are indulging in the trade practice of dumping goods and pressurising distributors/stockists to lift more than the minimum quantity stipulated in the agreements entered into by the respondents with them and terminating the distributorship/stockistship of those who refused to lift the excess quantities thus refusing to deal with them besides causing financial burden. (Annexure-1) AND WHEREAS the respondents for the purpose of sale of their products have granted discriminatory turnover discounts which are varied from time to time with different slabs of turnover to various stockists and distributors causing unmerited hardship to the small distributors/stockists (Annexure-2 showing the turnover discount is enclosed).” 2. So far as the second charge is concerned, a finding was recorded in favour of the appellant and, therefore, we need not examine that aspect of the matter at all. So far as the first charge is concerned, the Commission examined the matter from two angles and they are as follows: “(i) Dumping goods and pressurising distributors/stockists to lift more than the minimum quantity stipulated in the agreements entered into by the respondents with them. (ii) Terminating the distributorship of those dealers who refuse to lift the excess quantities thus refusing to deal with them besides causing financial burden.” 3. So far as the first aspect is concerned, the finding recorded is that the appellant had indulged in a restrictive trade practice of dumping goods on the distributors. However, on the second aspect it has been held by the Commission that the appellant had not indulged in the restrictive trade practice of refusal to deal with its distributors/stockists. We will assume for the purpose of this case without examining the matter any further that the finding on the first aspect recorded by the Commission is correct. Even so, in view of the finding recorded on the second aspect of the matter that the appellant had not indulged in a restrictive trade practice of refusal to deal with the distributors, we fail to understand as to how the charge is established. Even so, in view of the finding recorded on the second aspect of the matter that the appellant had not indulged in a restrictive trade practice of refusal to deal with the distributors, we fail to understand as to how the charge is established. The thrust of the charge is that the distributorship will be put to an end if the appellant does not deal with all the quantity of goods that are dumped upon the distributors/stockists. Therefore, when there is no proof of the fact that there is refusal to deal with them we find it difficult to accept that there has been any indulgence of restrictive trade practice as alleged in the matter. In the circumstances, the order made by the Commission is set aside. 4. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.