PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SCO NO. 220-221, SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH

Petition No.11 of 2010

Date of Hearing : 13.05.2010

           Date of Order :    26.05.2010                                                                    

In the matter of: Petition in the matter of Bansal Alloys & Metals (P) Ltd (Unit-II)

                              to recover SCC @ 5% of prevent rate of SCC for Transformer

                              capacity over and above 120% of the sanctioned CD under

                              Section 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Power to recover                                        expenditure, read with Regulation 9 of the Electricity Supply

                              Code and other related matters.

AND

In the matter of:       M/s Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd., GT Road, Sirhind Side,

                                Mandi Gobindgarh.

                                                            VERSUS

In the matter of:          Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala

                                                (now Powercom)

Present           :           Shri Jai Singh Gill, Chairman

                        Shri Satpal Singh Pall, Member

                        Shri Virinder Singh, Member

For Petitioner :          Shri B.R. Jindal

For Powercom :        Shri O.P.Garg, Dy.CE/Sales-I

                                    Shri Ravinder Gautam, SE/TR-II

                                    Shri Deepak K. Gautam, Sr. XEN

ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by M/s Bansal Alloys and Metals Private Limited praying that charges to the extent of 5% of the prevalent rate of service connection charges may not be imposed upon them while enhancing transformer capacity above 120% of the sanctioned contract demand.

2.         It is stated in the petition that the company is obtaining supply at 66 KV with a sanctioned load of 6937.760 KW, contract demand of 7918 KVA and has a switchyard of its own with a 12.5/16 MVA 66/11 KV transformer. The petitioner also has a cluster arrangement with another unit of the same company which has a sanctioned load of 6769.977 KW and a contract demand of 7912 KVA, thus raising the total sanctioned load and contract demand to 13737.737 KW and 15830 KVA respectively. It is further mentioned that the petitioner had applied for enhancement of transformer capacity to 25 MVA which was allowed by Powercom. However, while submitting the A&A form in this respect, the company was asked to deposit an amount equivalent to 5% of the prevalent rate of service connection charges for installing transformer capacity over and above 120% of the sanctioned contract demand. The petitioner has urged that additional charges as sought by Powercom are not provided for in the General Conditions of Tariff approved by the Commission. Moreover, in the Tariff Order of 2009-10 which became applicable from 1^st of April, 2009, the Commission had specified that service connection charges are payable on the basis of contract demand of the consumer and not linked to transformer capacity. It has been clarified also that the petitioner had applied for enhancement of transformer capacity on 4.5.2009 when the Tariff Order of 2009-10 was applicable. In the circumstances, it is argued that no service connection charges for enhancement of transformer capacity are payable by the petitioner.

3.         Notice was issued to Powercom and in reply, it is urged that the General Conditions of Tariff and Schedule of Tariff are not applicable in the instant case as charges for additional transformer capacity is not a tariff related matter. The levy of such charges, it is further argued, are provided in ESR 4.3.1 and these have been imposed accordingly.

4.         Arguments have been heard when the petitioner and Powercom have reiterated their pleas as indicated above. The Commission notes that service connection charges payable from 22^nd December, 2008 onwards have been approved by the Commission based on a proposal submitted in this connection by Powercom. These charges are payable on the basis of the contract demand of a consumer and not linked to the transformer capacity. In the circumstances, the Commission holds that service connection charges can be levied only on the lines as approved by the Commission and any provision in the ESR which is not in consonance with the present provisions concerning service connection charges is null and void. The Commission is, therefore, of the view that additional service connection charges recovered by the Licensee on the basis of higher transformer capacity were not leviable and be refunded to the petitioner by adjustment in future electricity bill(s). The petition is disposed of accordingly.

         Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

(Virinder Singh)                              (Satpal Singh Pall)                          (Jai Singh Gill)

 Member                                            Member                                             Chairman

Chandigarh :

Dated : 26.05.2010