Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner further averred that the activity of the subject Unit falls within each of the expressions used under HT Category-I of the Tariff Order issued by the APERC viz., Industry, Process, Process and Preserving, Preserving for sale and also Manufacturing; and that therefore respondent No.3 has wrongly reclassified the subject Unit by misconstruing the said definition. That the supply under HT Category-I (Industry) covers only industrial consumers and the definition of industrial consumers used therein is inclusive in nature and not an exhaustive one; that the word industry in the expression Industrial consumers should be undisputedly the true and natural meaning keeping in view the context and especially in comparison with other categories, more so HT Category-II (Non Industry). That any organized mode of activity by spending considerable money, employing men and equipment and the nature and volume of the products being dealt with, is sufficient to bring the same within the fold of the expression industry. The petitioner specifically averred that consumers with much simpler activity than that of the subject Unit and with no manufacturing activity, have been included by the respondents under HT Category-I (Industry), viz., Cold Storage Units, Rice Mills, Effluent Treatment Plants etc.; that respondent No.3 ought to have noticed that HT Category-II (Non Industrial) is purely for the consumers whose activities are non- industrial in nature and when the subject Unit is an industry it can never be placed under HT Category-II (Non Industrial); and that even under the scheme of classification of consumers for the purpose of tariffs chargeable either under the Tariff Notifications issued by the erstwhile APSEB or under the Tariff Orders issued by the APERC, the activities being undertaken by the subject Unit are categorized only as industrial activity. That apart from the process of preserving and storing very large quantities of highly volatile petroleum products like Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel and Kerosene Oil, the subject Unit also manufactures and produces Gasohol, which is a blend of Motor Spirit and Ethanol; Power, which is a variant of Motor Spirit; and Turbojet, which is a variant of High Speed Diesel; and that the subject Unit also undertakes the activity of doping of Kerosene Oil to detect adulteration of petrol and diesel.

Vizag Dispatch end 65 Kg/cm2 (in parallel) Rajahmundry (inlet) 4.0 Kg/cm2 Rajahmundry (outlet) 65 Kg/cm2 (in parallel) Vijayawada (inlet) 6.5 Kg/cm2 Vijayawada (outlet) 65 Kg/cm2 (single pump) Suryapet (inlet) 4.0 Kg/cm2 (when pump is on) Suryapet (outlet) 60 Kg/cm2 (when pump is on) Secunderabad 2.0 Kg./cm2 etc. The petitioner further averred that electricity is consumed for the processes of (i) pumping or boosting the pumping of petroleum products; (ii) tapping or drawing them from the said Pipe Line; (iii) adding or blending; (iv) doping, (v) storing and (vi) packing the petroleum products in special containers or vessels; that the product tapped or drawn from the said Pipe Line is stored, is further processed and sold to the retailers and other oil companies in wholesale and that therefore the said activities fall within the expressions process for sale or preserving for sale or processing and preserving for sale used in the definition/clause in HT Category-I (Industry) in the Tariff Order. It was further averred that it is not necessary that there should be some new product coming out of the said process; that the interpretation given by respondent No.3 to the expression preservation is without any basis; that terming the movement of the petroleum products as transport and to treat the same as transport activity on the ground that there is no separate classification for the same is arbitrary and illegal; that respondent No.3 has approached the issue in general terms without any reference to the exact activity of the subject Unit; that respondent No.3 has relied on the order of the Vidyut Ombudsman which has merged in the order dated 16-4-2008 of this Court in W.P.No.2468 of 2008 and hence the impugned action of respondent No.3 is violative of principles of natural justice as he is required to consider the issue and decide the same independently. That the present Writ Petition is filed despite the availability of alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned action of respondent No.3 to the Fourm for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., at Tirupati and a further appeal to the Vidyut Ombudsman, as respondent No.3 has not considered the issue independently and has rejected the contention of the petitioner by taking irrelevant factors into consideration and referring to the findings of the Vidyut Ombudsman in Appeal No.16 of 2006, which this Court has set-aside vide order dated 16-4-2008 in W.P.No.2468 of 2008; that with respect to a similar issue of another Unit of the petitioner at Visakhapatnam, the Forum has decided against the claims of the petitioner; that in W.P.No.19496 of 2008 filed against the said decision, the categorization of the petitioner Unit under HT Category-II was suspended and the said Writ Petition is pending adjudication; and that a similar issue with respect to Rajahmundry Unit is pending in W.P.No.13821 of 2008 and the categorization of the said Unit under HT Category-II has been suspended. The petitioner claimed that it is entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.80 lakhs from respondent No.3.
It is submitted that the electricity is consumed for the process of (i) Pumping or Boosting the pumping of petroleum products; (ii) Tapping or Drawing them from the said pipe line; (iii) Adding or blending; (iv) Doping; (v) Storing and (vi) Packing them in special containers or vessels and then sold in whole sale and therefore the said activity of the said unit of the HPCL falls within the expressions of process for sale or Preserving for sale or Processing and Preserving for sale used in the said definition/clause provided in the said Category-I (Industry) in the Tariff Order.

The above pleadings have been reproduced by the petitioner in para- 51 of the affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition. In para-63 of the affidavit, the petitioner further pleaded :

I submit that the electricity is consumed for the process of
(i) Pumping or Boosting the pumping of petroleum products,
(ii) Tapping or Drawing them from the said pipe line, (iii) Adding or blending (iv) Doping, (v) Storing and (vi) Packing them in special containers or vessels and then sold in whole sale and therefore the said activity of the said unit of the petitioner falls within the expressions of Process for sale or Preserving for sale or Processing and Preserving for sale used I the said definition/clause provided in the said Category-