Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) has filed the instant petition seeking review and modification of the order dated 9.10.2018 in Petition No. 192/TT/2017. The Commission in the aforesaid order dated 9.10.2018 determined the transmission tariff from DOCO to 31.03.2019 for Asset I: 400kV D/C Aurangabad - Boisar TL {from Aurangabad S/S to location 313/0 on D/C Towers & Order in RPN.46/RP/2018 in PN.192/TT/2017 from location 332/0 to Boisar S/S on Multi circuit towers} & Asset II: Part of 400kV D/C Navsari Boisar TL from location 332/0 to Boisar S/S on Multi circuit towers under IPPs generation projects in Chhattisgargh (IPP D) in Western Region.
2. The Review petitioner has stated that vide the Impugned Order, while this Commission approved the COD as claimed by the review Petitioner, while determining the IDC, the Commission disallowed `1869 lakhs, out of the total IDC of `17552.69 lakhs, as claimed by the Review Petitioner. The relevant excerpts of the Impugned Order in this regard are as follows: (` in lakh) Asset IDC Claimed as per the Auditor's Certificate (Accrual basis) Accrued IDC as on COD worked disallowed as on COD due to computation difference Undischarged portion of Entitled IDC as on COD* Allowed on cash basis as on COD Discharge of A B C D F=A-C- 2016- 2017-
1 17552.69 15683.50 1869.19 2017.14 13666.35 676.26 1340.88
2 314.59 314.59 0.00 129.22 185.37 0.00 129.22 *The Un-discharge portion of IDC has been considered as ACE during the year of discharge.
3. The Review petitioner has stated that the basis for such disallowance appears to be a purported difference in calculation for which no basis was allegedly provided by the Review Petitioner. However, this Commission inadvertently did not take cognizance of details of the loans procured by the Review Petitioner for the construction of the Transmission Assets, which included foreign loans availed by the Review Petitioner. The details of all these loans were duly placed on record before Order in RPN.46/RP/2018 in PN.192/TT/2017 this Commission by the Review Petitioner in Form 9C of the tariff filing forms. The amount of IDC disallowed by this Commission roughly comes out to be equal to the IDC for the foreign loan component of the total debt.
4. The Review petitioner has submitted that the aforementioned findings were erroneously reached by this Commission owing to an inadvertent omission to consider the relevant documents and material facts placed on the record. Further, it is submitted that the Review Petitioner was not provided with an adequate opportunity to explain this difference in computation. This constitutes an error apparent on the face of record and raises a valid ground for review and modification of the Impugned Order. Therefore, the Review Petitioner has approached this Commission, vide the present Review Petition, seeking review and modification of the Impugned Order dated 09.10.2018.
5. The Respondent No.1, M. P. Power Management Co. Ltd. has filed its reply on 22.2.2019. M. P. Power Management Co. Ltd. has submitted that Commission has asked the clarification for difference in IDC amount shown in the auditors certificate and IDC amount shown in IDC statement for Asset-1. Further, the petitioner had submitted another additional statement for IDC amounting to Rs.10708.90 lakhs as against which the calculation is submitted for Rs.8718.93 lakhs only. From the above fact, it is very clear that the order of the Commission was delivered when the petitioner failed to justify its data and did not provide satisfactory reply to the observations of the commission. Order in RPN.46/RP/2018 in PN.192/TT/2017
6. Further the Respondent has submitted that the Review Petitioner has not submitted the exact calculation of IDC and rather is reiterating that the disallowed amount under the head IDC is around `1869.19 lakh as claimed by the Review Petitioner. In this way, the Petitioner is enabling to justify its claim regarding deduction made by the Commission. Analysis and Decision
7. We have considered the submission of the petitioner. The prudence check of IDC claimed for the foreign loan component was not possible since the petitioner didnt submit the details of the same in petition no.192/TT/2017, which the petitioner has submitted now along with the present review petition. This is a new fact, which the petitioner has placed on record under the guise of review. In the above background, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly, review on this ground is rejected. However, petitioner is granted liberty to submit the details along with documentary evidence in this regard at the time of true-up.
8. Petition No. 46/RP/2018 is disposed of in terms of the above. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. K. Iyer) (P.K.Pujari) Member Chairperson