2024 (5) TMI 1266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he imposition of a reliability charge by the appellant, a distribution licensee. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is principally responsible for the distribution and supply of electricity in the entire State of Maharashtra, except the areas that expressly fall within the responsibility of the utilities like the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, TATA Power Company, Reliance Energy Limited, etc. The 1st respondent is a steel industry, which claims to be one of the largest consumers of electricity supplied by the appellant. The 1st respondent is exporting its end products and earning significant foreign exchange for the country. 2. On the petition filed by the appellant, the Mahar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the Pen Circle area, including the 1st respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commission, an appeal was preferred by the 1st respondent before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (for short, 'the Tribunal'). By the impugned judgment, the order of the State Commission dated 15th June 2009 was set aside. SUBMISSION 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the impugned order, and the order dated 15th June 2009 passed by the Commission. The learned senior counsel submitted that the reliability charge existed in Pune, Baramati, Vashi and Thane circles. Relying upon Section 62 (3) of the 2003 Act, he submitted that the Commission has adequate powers to bring in schemes to improve the nature....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he 1st respondent was liable to pay the reliability charge. The Tribunal noted that the 1st respondent is undisputedly a continuous process industry on express feeder and is not subjected to load-shedding. In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the tariff of HT continuous industries, like the 1st respondent, has been fixed at a higher rate than that of the tariff rate applicable for HT non-continuous industries. In the same paragraph, the Tribunal noted the admitted position that effective from 1st June 2008, the continuous industries (on express feeder) were paying tariff of 4.30 paisa per kWh and non-continuous industries (not on express feeder) were paying tariff at the rate of 3.95 paisa per kWh. From 1st Augus....