Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: prudence check in M/S. Everest Power Pvt Ltd vs Punjab Electricity Regulatory ... on 12 November, 2014Matching Fragments
APPEAL NO.30 OF 2014 AND APPEAL NO.35 OF 2014 (9) The interest rates as claimed by Everest Power are excessive and have been allowed by the State Commission without proper prudence check.
8. Let us first deal with the issues raised by Punjab Power in Appeal No.35 of 2014 in which main issue has been raised relating to capping provisions.
22. The Everest Power also filed a Petition in Petition No.259 of 2009 before the Central Commission for determination of transmission charges payable to the ADHPL.
23. Ultimately, the Central Commission in its order dated 1.6.2011 directed the payment of ADHPL transmission charges as per the Central Commission's Regulations. Against the above order, the ADHPL filed the Appeal in Appeal No.81 of 2011 before this Tribunal. During the pendency of the Appeal, this Tribunal directed payment on the basis of the audited capital cost as per the Central Commission's Regulations till final order. Ultimately, this Tribunal had rendered the judgment dated 2.1.2013 and directed the Central Commission to carry out prudence check of the ADHPL capital cost and determine the tariff as per the Central Commission's Regulations.
94. This issue has already been discussed and decided against Everest Power by us holding that the entire cost of IDC and FC for the period October, 2011 to July, 2012 has to be borne by the Everest Power. We feel that condition (i) of principles of prudence check i.e. delay due to factors entirely attributable to the Generator as laid down in the judgment in APPEAL NO.30 OF 2014 AND APPEAL NO.35 OF 2014 Appeal No.72 of 2010 relied upon by the State Commission will be applicable in the present case for the period October, 2011 to July, 2012.
147. The State Commission has disallowed Rs.3.06 Crores out of Rs.4.31 Crores claimed for Travelling & Conveyance expenses.
148. According to the Appellant, the State Commission has wrongly disallowed Rs.3.06 Crores towards the cost of travelling and conveyance expenses out of the total approved expenses of Rs.4.31 Crores incurred by the Everest Power.
149. We find that the Everest Power had claimed travelling and conveyance charges of rs.4.31 Crores under 'Establishment'. However, the Consultant felt that some of the expenses including travelling and conveyance expenses were wrongly booked and shifted the travelling and conveyance expenses to 'Miscellaneous head'. The Consultant on prudence check recommended travelling and conveyance expenses of Rs.1.25 Crores to be included under 'Miscellaneous' head. The Consultant recommended approval of Rs.12.91 Crores under miscellaneous expenses as against Rs.12.50 Crores as per the CEA guidelines. Thus, the Consultant has recommended the miscellaneous expenses of 12.91 Crores including travelling and conveyance expenditure of Rs.1.25 Crores after prudence check.