Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14.2 that the Commission again provided opportunity to Appellant to submit the details of actual payment of arrears as claimed in the Petition. However, the Appellant did not submit the reply to the query raised by the Commission.

Therefore, the Commission has not been able to undertake the prudence check of the partial information submitted by the Appellant.

14.3 In view of the above shortfalls, the Commission disallowed the same.

O&Mn: (R&Mn+EMPn+A&Gn)*(I-Xn) Where EMPn: Employees cost of the Transmission Licensee Thus, while calculating the O&M expenses for a control period, the Commission has to consider all the employees expenses such as salaries, pension, gratuity, ex-gratia, etc. It is true that the actuarial valuation of employees cost has to be included in the employees' cost. The Commission has to consider the actuarial valuation after prudence check but due to data gaps in the submission, the Commission requested the Appellant to submit the basis for computation. In reply, the Petitioner/Appellant vide its letter dated 8.2.2013 provided the actual valuation report but failed to submit the computation of actuarial valuation and hence the Commission unable to undertake prudence check of partial information.

Thus, there may be variation between the audited accounts in a particular year and assets capitalized in the same year.

However, the Commission can verify the physical completion of the works and the respective works can be capitalized and can be taken under asset capitalization.

33.4 The Commission's finding in the Impugned Order on this issue is quoted below:

Commission's Analysis "3.48 The Commission has recently completed the prudence check of capital expenditure for the period FY 2007-08 to FY 2010-11. The prudence check involved the prudence check of procurement records and physical verification of the assets on ground. The prudence check of Capital expenditure for FY 2011-12 has been carried out by the staff of the Commission.

The Commission shall normally not revisit the performance targets.

54.2 It is true that as per the Transmission Tariff Regulations, 2011, the base year for the control period FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 is 2011-12 instead as considered by the Commission as 2010-11. The State Commission due to non- availability of audited accounts, past data etc., for the FY 2011-12, is bound to consider the financial figures of 2010- 11 in arriving employees' expenses, A&G expenses etc. as per the audited figures of the FY 2010-11 and hence considered 2010-11 as base line year in place of 2011-12. 54.3 We direct the State Commission to consider the baseline year 2011-12 as per the Regulations after receiving the audited accounts and after prudence check and compute the employees' expenses and A&G expenses, accordingly. 54.4 The Commission is directed to work out the employees' expenses and A&G expenses duly considering the base year as 2011-12 as per Tariff Regulations, 2011 after receipt of the Audited accounts and prudence check, though the issue was not challenged in Appeal No. 166 of 2012. The Commission has to follow its own Regulation and if any data is required from the Appellant, the Commission can direct the Appellant to furnish the audited accounts to decide the issue instead of simply deciding that the issue has attained finality.