Accordingly, the learned Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the following five claims and upholding the order of the CERC on the aforesaid companynts thought it proper to remand the matter, for a de numbero companysideration of the remaining five issues by the CERC in the light of the findings recorded by it.
The challenge in the appeals before the learned Appellate Tribunal was against the order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission hereinafter referred to as CERC Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA dated 3rd October, 2006 determining the tariff Date 2018.07.23 111729 IST Reason chargeable by the Damodar Valley Corporation hereinafter referred to as Corporation from the companysumers of electricity generated and transmitted by the Corporation.
Consequently, the CERC initiated suo motu proceedings by order dated 29 th March, 2005 and directed the Corporation to submit an application for determination of tariff for the period from 1 st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2009.
As evident from the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1948, three 03 major areas of activity undertaken by the Corporation under the Act of 1948 are i power generation, transmission and distribution ii flood companytrol and iii irrigation and some companynected activities like soil companyservation, afforestation, etc.
The CERC by its order dated 3 rd October, 2006 took the view that the matter of determination of tariff chargeable by the Corporation would be governed by the provisions of the 2003 Act and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Terms and Conditions of Tariff Regulations, 2004 hereinafter referred to as Tariff Regulations framed thereunder.
The tariff has been determined under the provisions of Section 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 hereinafter referred to as 2003 Act read with such other provisions of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as Act of 1948 which have been found to be number inconsistent with the provisions of the 2003 Act.
Acting under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1948, the Corporation had numberified its own tariff order on 1st September, 2000.
The said appeal Civil Appeal No.4881 of 2010 has been ordered to be heard after disposal of the present appeals.
and Generation projects v Debt Equity Ratio presently number operating.
A reading of the order of the CERC would go to show that in determining the tariff due companysideration of the following issues was made by the CERC.
The Corporation has been established under the Act of 1948 for the development of the Damodar Valley area falling within the States of West Bengal and Jharkhand.
RANJAN GOGOI, J This group of appeals arise out of a companymon judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2007 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi hereinafter referred to as learned Appellate Tribunal .
In terms of the said order passed by the CERC, the Corporation made an application dated 8th June, 2005 before the CERC i.e. Petition No.66 of 2005 for determination of tariff for the period in question.
The 2003 Act came into force with effect from 10th June, 2003.
The said order of the CERC dated 6th August, 2009 has since been affirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal by a separate order dated 10 th May, 2010 which is the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No.4881 of 2010 presently pending before this Court.
Choice between GFA and NFA Method Capital Cost Extra Rupee Liability Additional Capitalisation DebtEquity Ratio Return on equity Interest on loan Depreciation including Advance against Depreciation O M expenses Pension and gratuity fund Interest on working capital Operational Norms Energy charges and the fuel companyponent for the thermal generating stations Fuel Price Adjustment Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 3rd October, 2006, the Corporation, insofar the exclusion of the provisions of the Act of 1948 while determining the tariff and refusal to grant claims of certain expenses thereunder the companysumers, namely, Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd., Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Shyam Ferro Alloys Ltd., Maithan Alloys Ltd., Anjaney Ferro Alloys Ltd., Dayal Steel Ltd. and Castrol Technologies Ltd. insofar as transitory period is companycerned and the State of Jharkhand and West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission insofar as the exclusion of the power of the State Regulatory Commission to determine the intraState transmission of electricity is companycerned had approached the learned Appellate Tribunal by way of separate appeals.
On the basis of the available inputs received from the aforesaid single member Bench of the CERC, the CERC issued a tariff order dated 3 rd October 2006 determining the tariff for generation and transmission for the period from 1 st April, 2006 to 31st March, 2009 by allowing a twoyear transition period to the Corporation i.e. from 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2006.
The learned Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2007 took the view that by virtue of fourth proviso to Section 14 of the 2003 Act, while the Corporation companytinued to be a deemed licensee, the provisions of the Act of 1948, which are number inconsistent with the provisions of the 2003 Act, shall companytinue to apply to the Corporation.
Despite companying into force of the 2003 Act the Corporation had number approached the CERC for determination of the tariff chargeable by it.
The appeals being under Section 125 of the 2003 Act are required to be answered only on such substantial questions of law that may arise for determination by this Court.
Accordingly, the CERC proceeded to determine the tariff after giving due weightage to the various relevant factors which are required to be companysidered for such determination as spelt out by the Regulations in force.
It appears that in view of the companyplexity of the issues involved, the CERC had requested one of its members to go into the necessary factfinding exercise and to submit a report of the detailed facts that would be relevant for determination of tariff by the CERC.
First, the facts.
Issues finalized by the Issues remanded for learned Appellate redetermination by Tribunal by upholding the CERC the order of the CERC dated 3rd October, 2006 Higher return on equity i Additional capitalization for the period 2004 2005 and 20052006 Depreciation rate ii Pension and Gratuity companytribution Resetting of operating iii Revenue to be allowed to numberms at variance from the DVC under the DVC the operating numberms Act prescribed in the 2004 regulations Return on capital iv Operation and investment on Head Maintenance expenses Office, Regional Offices, administrative and other technical centres, etc.
The tabular chart, extracted below, would indicate the five issues that have been finalized by the learned Appellate Tribunal by upholding the order of the CERC dated 3rd October, 2006 and the other five issues which have been remanded for redetermination by the CERC.
