IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction) Dated: 1^st July, 2025 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member In the matter of:

M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd.

Through its Authorised Signatory Shri Dilip Kumar Mohanty Siltara Growth Centre, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 493 111. … Appellant Versus

1. Chhattisgah State Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492 001

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Through its Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur Chhattisgsarh-492 014. … Respondent (s)

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raunak Jain Mr. Vishvendra Tomar Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. C.K. Rai Mr. Ritesh Khare for Res.1 Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Akshat Jain for Res.2

JUDGEMENT

PER HON’BLE MR. SANDESH KUMAR SHARMA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1. M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd has filed the present Appeal challenging the Order dated 28.02.2019 (in short “Impugned Order”) in Petition No. 05/2019(T) passed by Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short “State Commission or “CSERC”). By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has approved the ARR and determined the retail supply tariff of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (in short “CSPDCL”).

Description of parties: -

2. The Appellant, M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd., is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and has established a captive generating plant within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the EA 2003 for meeting its power requirements. The Appellant is further connected to the 220 KV Siltara substation of CSPDCL through a 220 KV line for export/import of power with a contract demand of 54000 KVA.

3. Respondent No. 1, the State Commission, is the statutory body set up under provisions of Section 82 (1) of the Act. The State Commission performs statutory duties and functions enumerated under Section 86 of the Act.

4. Respondent No.2 is Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited.

Factual Matrix of the Case:

5. M/s SNC Lavalin International, reputed consultants, conducted a detailed study across the State of Chhattisgarh on the Loss & Cost of Service (in short "CoS") in the erstwhile Board and submitted its Final Report dated July 2009, giving a break-up of Consumer Category-wise CoS.

6. Vide its Letter dated 17.03.2011, CSPDCL forwarded the Final Report of M/s SNC Lavalin International to the State Commission and categorically stated therein that the Final Report, "--- has been finally accepted by CSPDCL after obtaining of required clarification of observations. As the report is found satisfactory and exemplary...".

7. In the Tariff Order dated 28.04.2012 for FY 2012-13, the State Commission determined the retail supply tariff of the Respondent CSPDCL. For the determination of cross-subsidy, the State Commission relied on Average CoS instead of Voltage-wise or Consumer Category-wise CoS due to the absence of relevant data.

8. In the Tariff Order dated 12.07.2013 for FY 2013-14, upon objections raised by stakeholders, State Commission directed CSPDCL that "----Considering the importance of voltage-wise cost of supply and directions issued by this Tribunal, the Commission directs the Petitioner to submit a detailed report on voltage-wise cost of supply and its impact on the tariff design within twelve months from the date of this Order.

9. In para 8, the State Commission further directed CSPDCL, "----to submit a detailed study report on voltage-wise cost of supply and its impact on the tariff design within twelve months from the date of this Order".

10. In the Tariff Order dated 12.06.2014 for FY 2014-15, State Commission again redirected CSPDCL to submit a detailed report on Voltage-wise CoS and its impact on the tariff design, "along with next tariff petition". CSPDCL further submitted that, "...new study will take at least one and a half/Years' time."

11. In th