NCLAT Stays Recovery of ₹27.38 Crore CCI Penalty On Intel Over India-Specific Warranty Policy For Microprocessors

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has stayed further recovery of the Rs. 27.38 crore penalty imposed on Intel Corporation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for abusing its dominant position in the market for boxed microprocessors for desktop PCs in India through an India-specific warranty policy that restricted warranty service in India and required customers to seek service in the country of purchase.

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra granted relief after noting that Intel has already deposited 25% of the penalty amount. The tribunal said, “Considering the submission, as admittedly 25% of penalty amount has since been deposited, hence further recovery stands stayed till the next date of hearing.”

The appeal challenges the CCI's February 12, 2026 order passed on a complaint by Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd., a parallel importer of microprocessors.

The CCI held that Intel changed its warranty policy on April 25, 2016. It restricted warranty service in India to processors purchased from authorised domestic distributors. Products bought abroad, even from authorised distributors, were not serviced in India and customers were required to seek service in the country of purchase.

The Commission found this to be unfair and discriminatory. It said the policy discouraged parallel imports and limited consumer choice. It forced buyers to purchase from authorised Indian distributors at higher prices.

The CCI defined the relevant market as “boxed microprocessors for desktop PCs in India” and found Intel to be dominant in this segment during the relevant period.

It held that the conduct imposed unfair conditions under Section 4(2)(a)(i). It also restricted the market under Section 4(2)(b)(i) and denied market access to parallel importers under Section 4(2)(c).

The Commission rejected Intel's defence that the policy targeted grey market products. It noted that the restriction applied even to genuine products purchased from authorised distributors abroad.

The penalty was computed at 8% of Intel's average relevant turnover. It was reduced to ₹27.38 crore after considering mitigating factors, including Intel's cooperation and withdrawal of the policy from April 1, 2024.

The CCI had also directed Intel “to widely publicise this change in order to spread awareness about withdrawal of the impugned India Specific Warranty Policy, and submit a compliance report within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of this order.”

Before the NCLAT, Intel submitted that it had already withdrawn the policy and publicised the change on its website in 2024. The CCI, however, said there should be no difficulty in further publicising it “since it shall be in the interest of the customers.”

Taking note of the issue, the tribunal observed that the CCI order does not specify how such publication is to be carried out. It recorded Intel's submission that it would place a proposal indicating the manner of publication. The tribunal said this aspect would be considered at the next hearing.

The tribunal also directed that the amount already deposited be converted into an interest-bearing fixed deposit receipt for one year, with automatic renewal till disposal of the appeal.

The matter is listed for hearing on April 24, 2026.

For Appellant: Senior Advocate A.S. Chandhiok with Advocates Samar Bansal, Karan S. Chandhiok, Avinash Amarnath, Nicky Collins, Purva Kohli, Aileen Sundardas and Tarushi G.

For Respondents: Advocates Samir R. Gandhi, Mohith Gauri and Divyanshu D. for Respondent No. 1 (CCI).