8.1 We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent Commission. In line with the second proviso to Regulation 39.1, the Appellant has rightly requested the Respondent Commission for computation of loan component to deduct the assets worth Rs. 13 Crore (i.e. Rs. 84.96 Crores minus Rs. 71.96 Crores) from the addition of assets of Rs. 41.76 Crores during the year as loan capital existed towards the retired assets worth Rs. 13 Crore. In our view, the certificate issued by the Statutory Auditors, who has conducted the audit of the Company, has issued the Certificate at the specific request of the Appellant for submission to Respondent Commission in respect of deduction of fixed assets and status of outstanding loans as on 31st March, 2015, meets the requirement of Regulation 39. In fact, the purpose of seeking such documentary evidence is to ascertain that the interest expenses pertaining to loan availed to create such assets should not be charged to the consumers. Accordingly, there appears no need for the Respondent Commission to have further details of the outstanding loan component for the assets worth Rs. 13 Crores retired during the year when the Appellant has not claimed any relief towards this assets. We do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent Commission that as Appellant has not furnished the yearwise details of assets withdrawn and loan repayment, the Appellant should be denied relief as per Regulation 39.1. Hence, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
