https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379979 Foreign exchange rate variation, once calculated and added to capital cost, was not shown to require apportionment between debt and equity under the tariff regulations. The provisions cited addressed the method of calculating foreign exchange variation and permitted recovery directly from beneficiaries, but they did not create any rule, regulation, statute, or precedent mandating a post-calculation debt-equity split. The challenge to the apportionment methodology therefore lacked a legally sustainable basis, and reopening the issue for an earlier tariff period would also unfairly shift the burden to consumers long after the relevant period. en-us Thu, 09 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 May 2019 07:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379979 Foreign exchange rate variation, once calculated and added to capital cost, was not shown to require apportionment between debt and equity under the tariff regulations. The provisions cited addressed the method of calculating foreign exchange variation and permitted recovery directly from beneficiaries, but they did not create any rule, regulation, statute, or precedent mandating a post-calculation debt-equity split. The challenge to the apportionment methodology therefore lacked a legally sustainable basis, and reopening the issue for an earlier tariff period would also unfairly shift the burden to consumers long after the relevant period. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379979