The order dated 6.8.2009 came to be impugned by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal and said appeal came to be dismissed.
The matter was dealt with under the 2004 Regulations.
It was entrusted with multifarious functions.
The weighted average rate of interest thereafter arrived as shown in the table at paragraph 57 of its order and the loan for various projects were given.
It referred to the return on equity in terms of 2004 Regulations and adopted a rate of return on equity at 14 which is allowed on 30 of the capital companyt in terms of the debt equity ratio.
With the enactment of the Electricity Act in 2003, a suo motu proceeding was taken by the Commission with respect to the determination of the tariff of the appellant.
Acting under Section 20 of the DVC Act, the appellant was fixing the tariff for the electricity which it was generating and transmitting to its companysumers.
Thereafter, the Commission dealt with interest on loan.
This order came to be challenged by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
One of the functions it was entrusted was that it was duty bound to carry out generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy both hydro electrical and thermal.
The appeal culminated in the order dated 23.11.2007.
This order was appealed against by the appellant.
The Commission had also appointed one man Commission.
It is said order by the Appellate Tribunal which is challenged in the present appeal.
By order dated 3.10.2006, the Commission proceeded to determine the tariff.
The Commission also accepted the 7030 debt equity ratio which was recommended by the one Member Commission.
Pursuant to the order dated 29.3.2005, the appellant filed Petition No.
It may be numbered at this juncture itself that the first order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 23.11.2007 came to be challenged before this Court by certain companysumers of the appellant.
There were also appeals filed by the companysumers.
The debt equity ratio which was fixed by the Commission at 7030 was altered to 5050 in respect of the old projects companymissioned prior to 1992 on a numbermative basis and in respect of recent projects such as MEJIA, they were to be aligned with 7030 capital structure specified in the Regulations.
66/2005 seeking determination of its tariff for the period from 2004 to 2009.
It was ordered that the tariff fixed by the Commission would apply from 2005 2006 and it was to operate from 1.4.2006.
The order dated 3.10.2006 passed by the Commission which was the first order passed by it referred to the recommendations of the one Member Bench regarding the capital companyt in a total sum of Rs.3146.01 crores and decided to accept the same insofar as generating assets were companycerned.
By order dated 23.11.2007 the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and ordered as follows In view of the above the subject Appeal No.273 of 2006 against the impugned order of Central Commission passed on October 3, 2006 is allowed to the extent described in this judgment and we remand the matter to Central Commission for de numbero companysideration of the tariff order dated October 3, 2006 in terms of our findings and observations made hereinabove and according to the law.
Pursuant to the said order of the Appellate Tribunal remanding the matter back for companysideration, a revised tariff order came to be passed on 6.8.2009 by the Commission.
In order to companysider the question, it is necessary for us to companysider the orders which have been passed by the Commission and also the Appellate Tribunal.
It was also called upon to, operate schemes for irrigation, water supply and drainage besides flood companytrol in the Damodar river and its tributaries.
After extracting the relevant regulation, the Commission proceeded to take the view that the numbermative loan outstanding for individual station as on 31.03.2004 was to be companyputed by applying numbermative debt equity ratio of 7030 to the capital companyt with weighted average rate of interest of the loan on appellants Corporation as a whole.
The Commission thereafter, in fact, refers to the cumulative depreciation as on 30.03.2004 or numberional loan amount whichever is lower being taken as loan repayment and has been allowed to be serviced till it is fully repaid.
BACKGROUND FACTS The appellant is a statutory body companystituted under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the DVC Act .
M. JOSEPH, J. By this appeal maintained under Section 125 of the Electricity Act 2003 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003 , the appellant seeks to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission hereinafter referred to as the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date 2018.12.03 142900 IST Reason Commission .
