Petition No. 277/2010. Case: Bhaskhar Shrach Alloys Ltd., (BSAL) Vs Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and Anr., [Alongwith Petition No. 293/2010]. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Case NumberPetition No. 277/2010
JudgesPramod Deo, Chairperson, S. Jayaraman, V.S. Verma and Deena Dayalan, Members
IssueElectricity Law
Judgement DateNovember 30, 2010
CourtCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission

Judgment:

  1. These petitions have been filed by BSAL and SAIL-BSL (hereinafter referred to as ' the Petitioners') for appropriate directions upon DVC for computation of correct level of capacity charges and Fuel Price Adjustment (FPA) in terms of the Commission's order dated 6.8.2009 in Petition No. 66/2005.

  2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Petition No. 277/2010 submitted as under:

    (a) The computation of capacity charges by the Respondent should be related to availability and in terms of Regulation 30 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004, the billing and payment of capacity charges shall be on a monthly basis;

    (b) The bills raised by the Respondent has not taken into consideration the tariff determination by the Commission by order dated 6.8.2009 in Petition No. 66/2005 as it has inflated tariff by 56.36 paisa towards FPA and 30 paisa towards capacity charges;

    (c) Gross Calorific Value (GCV) of coal/fuel has been withheld by DVC in the disconnection notice in order to inflate the tariff.

    (d) The Respondent has recovered excess amount beyond the tariff determined by the Commission and hence the Petitioner would be entitled to recover from the Respondent, the excess amount charged along with interest in terms of Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003;

    (e) that the Respondent has been charging capacity charges at the rate of 106.96 paisa/kWh and Fuel Price Adjustment (FPA) at the rate of 104.08 paisa/kWh from its consumers, which was in contravention to Commission's order dated 6.8.2009 passed in Petition No. 66/2005.

    (f) Detailed submissions along with the computations have been made in the petition. Interlocutory application (I.A. 32/2010) has also been filed for an interim order of stay of the disconnection notice.

  3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent, DVC objected to the submissions made by the Petitioner as above and mainly clarified as under:

    (a) The Respondent was billing the Petitioner in terms of Regulation 5 (3) of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 which provides that the tariff as was prevalent on 31.3.2009 as approved by the Commission would continue to be the applicable tariff for billing the consumers for the period from 1.4.2009 till determination of tariff from 1.4.209 onwards.

    (b) The actual generation for the period from 1.4.2009 onwards was not relevant as the existing tariff as on...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT