IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

REVIEW PETITION NO. 4 OF 2019 Dated: 20.08.2024 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member In the matter of:

MAITHAN ALLOYS LIMITED Ideal Centre, 4^th Floor, 9, Acharya J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700017 … Petitioner Versus

1. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Through its Secretary

3^rd & 4^th Floor, Chanderlok Building 36, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001

2. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION Through its Chief Managing Director DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata – 700054

3. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED Through its Chairman Vidyut Bhawan, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091

4. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Through its Managing Director Engineering Building, HEC Dhrwa, Ranchi – 834 004 Jharkhand … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Rajiv Yadav Counsel for the Respondent(s) : M.G. Ramachandran Sr. Adv.

Ranjitha Ramachandran Anushree Bardhan Shubham Arya Arvind Kumar Dubey for Res. 2

O R D E R

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. By way of this review petition, the petitioner Maithan Alloys Limited is seeking review of the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by this Tribunal in the petitioner’s appeal No.17 of 2014 along with other connected appeals which had arisen out of tariff order dated 07.08.2013 passed by Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in respect of Damodar Valley Corporation’s (DVC) Durgapur TPS unit for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014. Vide said judgment dated 17.05.2019, all these appeals were dismissed by this Tribunal.

2. According to the petitioner, the finding returned by this Tribunal in the said judgment dated 17.05.2019 that allowing both (i) contribution to sinking fund and (ii) depreciation on the capital asset created by utilising the bond amount, as passthrough to the DVC does not tantamount double allowance, is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent DVC. We have also gone through the judgment dated 17.05.2019 of this Tribunal, the pleadings of the parties and the written submissions filed by the learned counsels.

4. Before adverting to and dealing with the rival submissions made by the learned counsel, we deem it appropriate to reproduce hereunder the relevant portion of the judgment dated 17.05.2019 of this Tribunal, which is sought to be reviewed:-

“

Our findings: -

8.5 We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and also took note of the various judgments relied upon by the parties. While the main contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellants are against the allowance of contribution to sinking fund to DVC and its utilisation, on the other hand, leaned counsel for the Respondents contend that the Central Commission is allowing the same as per settled position of law and its relevant regulations relating to the subject. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that this Tribunal did not lay down that DVC could be allowed with both interest on loan as well as contribution to sinking fund which tantamount to a particular cost component being allowed twice to a generating company.

8.6 It is relevant to note that as per Section 40 of DVC Act, 1948, DVC is entitled for provision for depreciation, reserve and other fund. This Tribunal in its judgment dated 23.11.2007 in Appeal No.271 of 2006 & batch has held the admissibility of sinking fund in favour of DVC which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 23.7.2018 reported as 2018 (8) SCC 281. Regarding the contention of alleged double counting of learned counsel for the Appellant, we find no such duplication in the considerations and findings of the Central Commission.

8.7 Further, from the Tariff Regulation of the Central Commission, it is noticed that interest o