Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e), of the Tariff Regulations, 2009. The Central Commission has erred in interpreting the Tariff Regulations, 2009 in as much as the additional capitalization is not restricted on account of Regulation 19 (e), but is otherwise required to be considered on merits and after applying prudence check, the generating stations like NTPC required additional capital assets from time to time to be installed. Further, the Central Commission also did not take into consideration the process of implementation of the CEA approved scheme for the mid life Renovation &Modernization was only taken up during 2004-09 period. Most of the scheme got completed in 2009-10 & 2010-11 and accordingly capitalized in the tariff period 2009-14. Further, the Central Commission has not taken into consideration the entire amounts as per Regulations 18 read with Regulation 19 of Tariff Regulations, 2009 for deriving the permissible interest on working capital.

"9. ..................
2) The capital expenditure incurred on the following counts after the cut-off date may, in its discretion, be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check:
.........
(ii) Change in law"

17.02. that the learned Central Commission observed that such expense was being claimed by the appellant in FY 2013-14, on the aforesaid basis without providing any explanation for the delayed capitalization of the expenditure. Further, such claim was being made under the 'change in law' provision of the Tariff Regulations, 2009 without demonstrating the need for such expenditure under the provisions of any statute. Hence, the learned Central Commission has correctly rejected this claim of the NTPC with the observations in para 27 of the impugned order dated 14.09.2012 in Petition No. 280 of 2009 (Appeal No. 253 of 2012).

"The capital expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred on the following counts after the cut off day may, in its discretion, be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check:
......................
(vii) Any capital expenditure found justified after prudence check necessitated on account of modifications required or done in fuel receipt system arising due to non-materialisation of full coal linkage in respect of thermal generating station as result of circumstances not within the control of the generation station."

29. Thus, a perusal of Regulation 9 (2) (vii) of the Tariff Regulations, 2009 shows that the capital expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred may be admitted by the Central Commission, in its discretion subject to the prudence check, if the Page 46 Judgment in Appeal Nos.129, 150, 167, 184, 212, 224, 232, 247, 252 & 253 of 2013 and 53 of 2013 capital expenditure is found justified after prudence check necessitated on account of modifications required or done in fuel receipt system arising due to non- materialization of fuel coal linkage as a result of circumstances not within the control of the generating station.