Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: DERC in M/S S D Bansal Iron And Steel Private ... vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 12 April, 2019Matching Fragments
3.26 The reliance by the State Commission in the oral arguments on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to tax benefits in misplaced. The tax is collected by the sovereign and it is for the sovereign to decide to give any exemptions, remissions, concessions etc. There are not specified criteria based on which the exemptions can be given.
3.27 The reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Northern Railway v DERC, Appeal No. 268 of 2006 dated 13/03/2007 to contend that this Tribunal has approved the differentiation based on old consumer and new consumer is misplaced. The comparison was between Indian Railways and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, which are two very different consumers. DMRC is a mass rapid transport system for the city, the Railways is for the country as a whole. Railways has a very substantial network, been in place for aver 150 years, has financial strength and can maintain operations at existing level with nominal increase. Considering all of these, the different categories was approved. (Para 17 and 18) 3.28 There was no differentiation on the sole ground that one consumer is an existing consumer and the other is a new consumer. This Tribunal has in fact gone on various factors including the viability of DMRC, the requirements of DMRC, the nature of DMRC and the age of Railways etc. to provide for the different classification.
4.5 It is submitted that same differentiation in tariff determination has been previously allowed by this Tribunal in the matter of Northern Railway v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission in Appeal No. 268 of 2006. The application of the said case to the present facts is evident from the table below:
Application of APTEL Order in Northern Railway v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Differentiation APTEL's Northern Present Case Railway Order Differentiation Differentiation between Differentiation between between new old (Northern Railway) new and old industries and old and new consumer for propose of giving (DMRC) for tariff given. In rebate Para 9 (b)of the this Tribunal's Order, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ("DERC") explained the basis of differentiation by stating that DMRC is a new consumer.
Paragraph 3 of the APTEL Order records that the grievance of Northern Railway was that it has been discriminated against in as much as it had been made to pay tariff at a rate higher than that paid by DMRC.
Although DERC's Order
did not specifically deal
with the reasons for
differentiation in the
Order, DERC explained
the differentiation in its
reply.
Appellant's In para 16 of its Order this In the present case
objection to Tribunal holds that DMRC differentiation is doneto
differentiation: is new consumer and is promote new industries
basis of age still in the process of in the State and to
building its infrastructure & maximize consumption
therefore, the impact of of surplus energy
tariff on it is much higher within the State so as
than the impact of tariff on to minimize on the
the appellant. This fixed cost of un-
Tribunal noted that the full dispatched/surplus
meaning of the words "a power.
new consumer of 220 kV The new Industries
and its differentiating require creation of new
nature of service" in the infrastructure, market
tariff Order for financial etc. which necessitates
years 2002-03 and 2003- huge capital
04 can be explained and investment. (Please
understood in this context. refer to Page 234,para
13 of the Appeal)
Objection of Para 17 of the The Appellant in the
the Appellant APTELOrder records that present case contests
against Northern Railway disputed that new industries
differentiation that DMRC can be treated cannot be treated as a
on basis of as a preferred class only preferred class only
new and old because it is a new because they are new
consumer at 220 kV. It consumers and that
was contended by this differentiation does
Northern Railway that the not fall within
comparative age of the differentiation under
consumers is not a criteria Section 62(3) of EA
for differentiation under 2003.
Section 62(3) of EA 2003.
Contention of Para 17 of the APTEL The Appellant contests
Appellant is Order records that that it too like the new
that Northern Railway industries has a
expansion of contended that it is business to run and
business is constantly expanding its expand therefore
required by services reach etc., and differentiation cannot
old industries also has to undertake be made on the ground
substantial expenditure that the new industries
every year towards need to create new
building new infrastructure
infrastructure.
New This Tribunal holds in para Unless the new
industries 17 that the arguments of industries are treated
have to Northern Railway when preferentially, they will
compete examined closely lose not be able to compete
against their force. Northern with the older well
established Railway is an established established industries.
industries organisation. Unless Further the purpose of
DMRC is treated supply of electricity to
preferentially, its viability the old industries is to
itself may be at stake. The enable them to
purpose of supply of continue their
electricity to the two operations and
organisation can thus be nominal increase in
distinguished. The DMRC growth of their
can be distinguished from business. However,
the appellant in terms of the purpose of supply
age. The purpose of of electricity to the new
supplying electricity to the industries is to set an
two organisations namely altogether new project
the Appellant and DMRC which is also termed
can also be said to be as a green field
different. For Appellant the project. Setting up
purpose of supply of green field project is a
electricity is to maintain its huge infrastructure
operation at the existing cost and thus the new
level except for the industries merit
nominal increase by the preferential treatment.
year whereas the purpose
of supply of electricity to
DMRC is to create an
altogether new transport
system for the City of
Delhi.
vi) The first Respondent/the State Commission has placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Northern Railway v DERC, Appeal No. 268 of 2006 dated 13/03/2007 wherein it is noticed that there is no similarity between the case considered in the Appeal No. 268 of 2006 and the present Appeal. In Appeal No. 268 of 2006, the issue is between the Northern Railway and the new consumer 'Delhi Metro Rail Corporation'. It is to be kept in mind that whereas Northern Railway and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation both use electricity for the purpose of traction but their nature of service is different.