- (1.) M/s Cosmo Films Limited (Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit) (CFL), at MIDC Shendra Industrial Area, Distt. Aurangabad has filed a Petition on 9 April, 2014 regarding illegal recovery of additional amounts against the Commission's Orders dated 3 September (Case No. 28 of 2013), 4 September (Case No. 44 of 2013) and 5 September, 2013 (Case No. 95 of 2013) and seeking action against the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) under Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003.
(2.) The Petitioner's prayers are as follows: " 1. Refund of excess amount collected by MSEDCL: We appeal to issue directives to the respondent to refund excess amount illegally collected from us along with accrued interest thereon. 2. Action as per Section 142 and 146 of EA Act 2003: We appeal to initiate Punishment for contravention of Commission's orders for case nos. 38/2013, 44/2013 and 95/2013 which has resulted illegal recoveries from us in energy bills of Sept. 2013 onwards. 3. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - towards cost incurred for filing petition, attending hearings, man -hr cost, traveling expenses etc..."
(3.) The Petition states that: a. CFL is a consumer of MSEDCL with contract demand of 7500 kVA and connected load of 10,929 kW, and its plant is being supplied at 132 kV level. As per the load release order/meter connection report of MSEDCL, the supply at 132 kV was connected on 29 July, 2013. b. MSEDCL issued a Circular No. 209 dated 7 September, 2013 for recovery of Additional Energy Charges (AEC) and Additional Fuel Adjustment Charges (AFAC) as per the Commission's Orders in Case Nos. 28, 44 and 95 of 2013. c. Vide Order dated 3 September, 2013 in Case No. 28 of 2013, the Commission had approved the capital cost and determined the Tariff for Paras Unit No. 4 and Parali Unit No. 7 of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (MSPGCL) for FY 2010 -11. Considering that Order, MERC allowed MSEDCL to recover Rs. 628.9 crore (including carrying cost). The amount has been recovered as AEC -3 at the rate of 8.73 p/Unit (HT - Continuous Industry Tariff) by MSEDCL under its Circular No. 209 dated 7 September, 2013. d. Vide Order dated 4 September, 2013 in Case No. 44 of 2013, the Commission approved the capital cost and determined the Tariff for MSPGCL's Khaparkheda Unit No. 5 for FY 2012 -13, and consequently allowed MSEDCL to recover Rs. 596.12 crore (including carrying cost). It has been recovered as AEC -4 at the rate of 49.92 p/Unit by MSEDCL under Circular No. 209 dated 7 September, 2013. e. Vide Order dated 5 September, 2013 in Case No 95 of 2013, the Commission allowed MSEDCL to recover accumulated under recovery of Rs. 2037.78 crore as AEC -1. The amount has been recovered at the rate of 61.73 p/Unit by MSEDCL under Circular No. 209 dated 7 September, 2013. Through the same Order, the Commission allowed MSEDCL to recover incremental cost of Rs. 235.39 crore towards Bhusaval Unit No. 4 and Transmission cost. The amount has been recovered as AEC -2 at the rate of 49.92 p/Unit under Circular No. 209 dated 7 September, 2013. f. The Commission has allowed MSPGCL to recover Rs. 920 crore towards fixed cost and energy charges from MSEDCL till the Tariff determination of FY 2013 -14. g. CFL's factory began operating on 19 August, 2013. Hence any past recoveries prior to August, 2013 should not be imposed upon it. AFAC can be recovered from CFL for only a 7 month period. On pro rata basis, the AFAC will be 8 p/Unit instead of 20.57 p/Unit, and AEC -2 will be 29.12 p/Unit and not 49.92 p/Unit. h. MSEDCL billed the entire AEC (1 to 4) and AFAC from August 2013. MSEDCL should refund the excess amount recovered from CFL, with interest rate of 18% p.a. as per S. 62(6) of EA, 2003, which hreads as follows: "...If any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee..." i. Vide Order dated 28 March, 2014, the Commission had dismissed a sim,ilar Petition of CFL in Case No. 19 of 2014 on the ground of non -appearance. However, under Regulation 71 of the Conduct of Business Regulations, 2004, CFL can submit a fresh application on the same issue. ;