torrefied pellets which were tobe used by the appellant, therefore, the appellant could not comply with the rule 5 and the CEA vide communication dated 27.08.2025 had acknowledged this difficulty and while passing the impugned order the CAQM proceeded on the wrong premise that the appellant could not demonstrate the issue of force majeure, statutory prohibitions or legal impediment in preventing the compliance. He submits that CAQM did not take into account the difficulty of the appellant in compliance of the rules since torrefied pellets were not available and in spite of the efforts, appellant could not precure it. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent-CAQM on advance notice, has referred to the communication of the CEA dated 27.08.2025 and has submitted that availability of torrefied biomass pellets was 564 TPD in NCR and utilization of the appellant was much less i.e. 26,061 in the concerned year 2024-2025. He has further submitted that CAQM is insisting upon such compliance right from the year 2021 when advisory was issued, thereafter statutory directions were issued and the rules of 2023 were brought in forced. He further submits that rules of 2023 prescribed for the calculation and levy of environmental compensation based upon the percentage utilization by TPP and following that formula, the environmental compensation has been levied in this case. He has also submitted that Principles of Natural Justice has been duly followed and a show cause notice was given to the appellant and committee was appointed and thereafter impugned order has been passed.
