JUDGMENT : The appellant preferred this appeal, challenging the order of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in T.P.No.1 of 2002 of TNEB. 2. The appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds: (i) The Commission is not be justified in any manner, by Clause 7.13 of the said order, in imposing surcharge of 15% on the total power consumption simply because the appellant has an arc furnace. Power consumed by the industries without arc furnaces and those with arc furnaces being the same, there cannot be a surcharge of additional charge simply because of an establishment has an arc furnace. (ii) The additional levy on the energy consumption of an industry having an arc furnace is irrespective of the proportion of the actual consumption of power. By the impugned order, the commission is putting a burden on the industry to pay an additional 15% without considering what is the actual consumption of power by an arc furnace. (iii) The order of the second respondent states that "the additional charge is on account the harmonics created by the rectifiers used by the arc furnaces. Further the Commission is also of the opinion that this extra charge should be levied only till such time as the harmonics are created by such industries." This order itself is irrational on the ground that the harmonics is even caused by the home appliances too. So the intelligible differentia applied here is without any basis and is arbitrary. "Harmonics" are the oscillations in transmissions/consumption of power. In any event it is submitted that though the appellant has 2 arc furnaces, it is not using one and had also so informed TNEB (the 2nd respondent) on 7th August, 2003, itself. Even this one is used only sparingly. (iv) The order of the Commission further states that "the Industries as well as TNEB should take remedial measures to rectify the situation of production of harmonics by Arc Furnaces." So the petitioner alone cannot be burdened with this extra levy when TNEB is equally responsible to reduce the harmonics, if any, caused by the Arc Furnaces. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant prays to set aside Clause 7.13 of the order dated 15.03.2003 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in T.P.No.1 of 2002 of TNEB and prayed to allow this appeal. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant prays to set aside Clause 7.13 of the order dated 15.03.2003 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in T.P.No.1 of 2002 of TNEB and prayed to allow this appeal. 3. By way of counter affidavit, the first respondent submits that the additional charge of 25% on H.T Industries having Arc Furnaces was levied vide G.O.Ms.No.30 (Energy Department) dated 11.04.2001. The levy was necessitated that Arc Furnaces are used by HT Industries were causing havoc in the quality of electrical supply system in respect of flicker, interference, harmonics, power factor, negative sequence currents and unbalanced voltages. In order to minimize the above effects and to compensate the additional capital investment, this levy of 25% was made. The same was incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.95 (Energy Department) dated 28.11.2001 and was brought into force with effect from 01.12.2001. But the said G.O was challenged by the appellant company in W.P.No.2961 of 2002. So the respondent Board could not collect the levy from the appellant. 4. The present order of the learned Commissioner is under the Electricity Regulatory Commission's Act, 1998, after hearing the views of public, consumers and others and taking into account various factors, the additional levy has been reduced from 25% to 15% with effect from 16.03.2003. It is further added that this levy is made on all H.T Industries, if Arc Furnace is installed by them. The harmonics created by the Arc Furnaces are much more disturbing when compared to home appliances. Therefore, the contention made by the appellant company is liable to be rejected. Further, he submits that remedial measures are to be taken by the H.T Industries, which have Arc Furnace like using filters and compensators, which minimise the impact caused by Arc Furnaces. He would further submit that the appellant company has since removed the Arc Furnace in their industries and installed Induction Furnace since 07.08.2003. Hence, the additional charge levied is justifiable from the respondent board's point of view. Therefore, there is no infirmity nor illegality in the order passed by the learned Regulatory Commission. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal as no merits. 5. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the TNEB is not having any scientific data or proof to claim that the industries which are having arc furnaces creating harmonics. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal as no merits. 5. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the TNEB is not having any scientific data or proof to claim that the industries which are having arc furnaces creating harmonics. In the absence of such scientific data/energy audit done during the period 2001 to August 2003 by the appellant, the TNEB cannot claim this 15% extra over and above the consumption charges claiming that harmonics are created by industries which are using arc furnace. The TNEB failed to consider the fact that the appellant industry has already put necessary transformers/filters to avoid causing harmonics if any in view of the power drawn by their arc furnaces. Based upon the above contention, the appellant's counsel submits that the TNEB has not taken any remedial measure. At that point of time as suggested by TNERC in its order at para 7:13, dated 15.03.2003, the TNEB did not take any steps to inspect or evolve mechanism to find out harmonic levels in the power lines of the appellant factory. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellant ought to have prefer the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity as per Chapter XI of 2003 Act, which speaks as follows: "110. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal: The Central Government shall, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to hear appeals against the orders of the adjudicating officer or the appropriate Commission [under this Act or any other law for the time being in force]: 111. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal: Any person aggrieved by an order made by adjudicating officer under this Act (except under Section 127) or an order made by the appropriate Commission under this Act may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity: Provided that any person appealing against the order of the adjudicating officer levying and penalty shall, while filling the appeal, deposit the amount of such penalty; Provided further that where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of such penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, it may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realisation of penalty. (2) Every appeal under sub section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the adjudicating officer or the appropriate Commission is received by the aggrieved person and it shall be in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed: Considering the objection raised by the appellant that they were aggrieved by the additional 15% of surcharge over and above the consumption charges incurred by the industries which are using Arc furnace. The appellant's contention is that the TNEB has not taken by any remedial measure nor submitted any scientific data or proof to claim such an additional surcharge. 7. In fact, the respondent Board also not placed any material to substantiate that they have also followed the scientific data to levy additional surcharge of 15%, but as per Chapter XI of 2003 Act and Section 110 and 111 which confers power upon the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, with regard to claim of the appellant, the Appellate Tribunal alone is the right forum to decide the issue between the parties. 8. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the concerned Appellate Tribunal for Electricity as contemplated under law. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.