ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appeal has been preferred by the NTPC limited, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.03.2014, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, in Appeal No. 86 of 2002, which was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the order dated 22.2.2012, passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi, in Review Petition No. 11 of 2011, filed by the NTPC, by which review had been allowed. As against modified order, the appeal had been preferred before the APTEL. 3. The facts in short indicate that the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (in short 'the NTPC') is a generating company, owned and controlled by Central Government. It maintains various generating stations all over India. It is engaged in the business of generation and sale of electricity to various purchasers and beneficiaries, who are respondent Nos.2 to 20. One of the generating stations of the NTPC is at Farakka Super Power Thermal Power Station. The NTPC, on 20th July, 2009 filed petition No. 150 of 2009, in respect of the Farakka Station, before the Central Commission, praying for the revision of tariff on account of additional expenditure incurred by it for the period 2006-07 to 2008-2009. We are concerned, in the instant case, with the claim for Rs. 61.49 lakhs on communication network augmentation, and the claim for expenditure of Rs. 289.40 lakhs on capitalization of ten new wagons, and the claim for Rs. 225.54 lakhs on account of capitalization for the implementation of SAP programme in the ERP system. Only two items about communication network and capitalization of wagons have been pressed before us. The Central Commission dismissed the application for review of the tariff on 28.4.2011, by disallowing the four claims. Review petition was filed before the Central Commission on 16/6/2011, which was confined only to the disallowance of the 4th claim of Rs. 225.54 lakhs in the year 2008-09 on account of capitalisation of the implemention of the said programme of ERP system. 4. The APTEL has decided the appeal. The claim of Rs. 61.49 lakhs on communication network augmentation has been dealt with from paragraphs 46 to 51 of the impugned judgment. The APTEL has reasoned, that the commercial operation date of the plant was from 01.04.1995; Rs. 4. The APTEL has decided the appeal. The claim of Rs. 61.49 lakhs on communication network augmentation has been dealt with from paragraphs 46 to 51 of the impugned judgment. The APTEL has reasoned, that the commercial operation date of the plant was from 01.04.1995; Rs. 277 lakhs had been allowed during the period 2001-04 for augmentation of IT and communication network, and a further expenditure of Rs. 17.13 had been allowed during 2004-05 for Availability Based Tariff (in short 'the ABT') Meters, and Rs. 41 lakhs had been allowed during 2005-06 for augmentation of communication network. Thus, the APTEL reasoned, that in view of the expenditure that had been allowed for ABT metering and IT and communication network as additional capitalisation in the earlier years during the period 2001-04 and 2004-06, the Central Commission rightly did not allow the additional capitalisation claimed for the data communication network and data application system for ABT. Agreement has been discussed and finding had been recorded by the Central Commission that the amount would not give any direct benefit to the beneficiaries of the generating plant. Whereas, it was required for the APTEL to consider the additional capitalization as per requirement of Regulation 14 (ii) and 18 of CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations 2004 which is extracted hereunder: "14(ii) Additional Capitalisation means the capital expenditure actually incurred after the date of commercial operation of the generating station and admitted by the Commission after prudence check subject to provisions of regulation 18" Regulation 18 of the CERC(Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations 2004 inter alia states that - "18.Additional capitalisation: (1) The following capital expenditure within the original scope of work actually incurred after the date of commercial operation and up to the cut off date may be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check: Deferred liabilities; Works deferred for execution; (iii) Procurement of initial capital spares in the original scope of work, subject to ceiling specified in regulation 17; (iv) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or for compliance of the order or decree of a court; and (v) On account of change in law. Provided that original scope of work along with estimates of expenditure shall be submitted along with the application for provisional tariff. Provided that original scope of work along with estimates of expenditure shall be submitted along with the application for provisional tariff. Provided further that a list of the deferred liabilities and works deferred for execution shall be submitted along with the application for final tariff after the date of commercial operation of the generating station. (2) Subject to the provisions of clause (3) of this regulation, the capital expenditure of the following nature actually incurred after the cut off date may be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check: Deferred liabilities relating to works/services within the original scope of work; Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or for compliance of the order or decree of a court; On account of change in law; Any additional works/services which have become necessary for efficient and successful operation of the generating station, but not included in the original project cost; and Deferred works relating to ash pond or ash handling system in the original scope of work. (3) Any expenditure on minor items/assets like normal tools and tackles, personal computers, furniture, air-conditioners, voltage stabilizers, refrigerators, fans, coolers, TV, washing machines, heat-convectors, carpets, mattresses etc. brought after the cut off date shall not be considered for additional capitalisation for determination of tariff with effect from 1.4.2004. Note The list of items is illustrative and not exhaustive. (4) Impact of additional capitalisation in tariff revision may be considered by the Commission twice in a tariff period, including revision of tariff after the cut off date. Note 1 Any expenditure admitted on account of committed liabilities within the original scope of work and the expenditure deferred on techno-economic grounds but falling within the original scope of work shall be serviced in the normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation 20. Note 2 Any expenditure on replacement of old assets shall be considered after writing off the gross value of the original assets from the original project cost, except such item as are listed in clause (3) of this regulation. Note 3 Any expenditure admitted by the Commission for determination of tariff on account of new works not in the original scope of work shall be serviced in the normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation 20. Note 3 Any expenditure admitted by the Commission for determination of tariff on account of new works not in the original scope of work shall be serviced in the normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation 20. Note 4 Any expenditure admitted by the Commission for determination of tariff on renovation and modernization and life extension shall be serviced on normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation 20 after writing off the original amount of the replaced assets from the original project cost." 5. It is apparent, that the APTEL was required to consider as to whether additional works/services, which have become necessary for efficient and successful operation of the generating stations, but which were not in the original project cost, has to be allowed as provided in Regulation 18(2)(iv). It prima facie appears to us that the communication augmentation system was necessary for effective and successful operation of the generating station. APTEL ought to have considered the prayer made by the NTPC; but that has not been done. 6. With respect to the wagons, APTEL has reproduced the findings of the central commission, contained in Para No.41 of the Commission's order dated 28.04.2011. The said para is reproduced below : "41. Expenditure for Rs. 289.40 lakh has been claimed during 2006-07 on account of procurement of 10 nos of wagons against replacement of 10 nos of wagons rendered unserviceable in 2003-04. These wagons were procured and put to use during June, 2006. It is observed that the Petitioner has transferred 30 nos. of wagons during 2006-07 to its other generating station namely, Talcher TPS-II. From the above, it is clear that procurement of new wagons was not necessary for the generating station. In view of this, it would not be justifiable and prudent to capitalize the cost of new wagons and burden the beneficiaries when 30 nos of wagons have been transferred to other generating station of the Petitioner. Also, the corresponding de capitalization of Rs. 283.90 lakh has been ignored." 7. The APTEL has observed, that the appellant had not established before the Central Government, that there was any need of wagons at the generating station. The finding of the Central Commission has been upheld, without making much discussion. It was submitted before us, that various affidavits were filed before the Regulatory commission with respect to the wagons on 16.7.2009, 1.2.2010, 27.4.2010 and on 14.9.2010. The finding of the Central Commission has been upheld, without making much discussion. It was submitted before us, that various affidavits were filed before the Regulatory commission with respect to the wagons on 16.7.2009, 1.2.2010, 27.4.2010 and on 14.9.2010. On 18.9.2010 NTPC filed another affidavit. Pursuant thereto rejoinder was filed on 5.10.2010 justifying the claim regarding wagons all that has not been taken into consideration. It was also submitted, that the mere fact that there was transfer of certain wagons to other generating stations for the purpose of transportation and procurement of certain wagons for use, would not be a relevant factor, since wagons keep on moving from one place to another as per the requirements of different generating stations. It was also submitted before us, that as a number of generating stations have to be maintained, they were used for transportation of coal to the other places of generation. NTPC has to have sufficient capitalisation capacity of the generating stations. Other facts have been also mentioned in the affidavit that has been filed before us regarding the requirement of wagons in paras 21 to 22. In the written submission submitted before the APTEL certain grounds were raised also before the commission in paragraph 22 to 29. All these aspects have not been taken into consideration. Thus, we find that the decision reached by the APTEL cannot be allowed to sustain, as all the grounds argued have not been taken into consideration. 8. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5, that due to revision of tariff ultimately consumers have to bear the brunt. It would not be proper to make revision of the tariff with retrospective effect. Suffice it to observe that it may not be appropriate at present to make revision of tariff retrospectively as it would not be proper to fasten liability upon the consumer with retrospective effect. In case revision of tariff is required, let APTEL consider aforesaid aspect also. 9. On the aforesaid two aspects only, we set aside the judgment of the APTEL, and remit the matter to the APTEL to decide the same afresh. 10. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on merits of the case. The APTEL is free to reach decision unfetered by any observation made in this Order. 11. The Civil Appeal is disposed of including pending applications, if any.