NABHA POWER LIMITED versus PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1308 · Decided: 19-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1308 : 2025 INSC 1002
Nabha Power Limited  
v. 
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others 
(Civil Appeal No. 8694 of 2017)
19 August 2025
[B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of 
Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014-FTP were legitimately available to 
the appellants as of the bid cut-off date and would notifications by 
Directorate General of Foreign Trade amount to “Change in Law” 
under the Power Purchase Agreement dated 18.01.2010; whether 
the Press Release of Cabinet Decision pertaining to change of 
threshold of so-deemed export benefits would constitute a “Change 
in Law” under the PPA; and if so, whether the appellants entitled 
to restitutionary relief in the form of compensation.
Headnotes†
Electricity Act, 2003 – ss. 63, 125 – Foreign Trade (Development 
& Regulation) Act, 1992 – s.5 read with Paragraph 1.2 of the 
FTP – Customs Act, 1962 – Availability of benefits under the 
Foreign Trade Policy to power plant as of the cut-off date – 
Claim for Deemed Export Benefits, eligibility – Withdrawal 
of Foreign Trade Policy Para 8.3 benefits, if constitutes 
change in law – Appellants-NPL and TSPL, Special Purpose 
Vehicles formulated to develop Mega Watt coal-fired power 
project at Rajpura, Punjab, through Tariff-Based Competitive 
Bidding, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with 
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited-PSPCL – NPL 
sought concessions or exemption from payment of customs 
duty while importing capital goods – FTP amended that 
Terminal Excise Duty exemptions under the FTP would not 
be available for the supplies made to a non-MPP (with cut-off 
date being 01.10.2009) – Petition by NPL that the Mega Power 
benefits were factored into the bid and hence did not warrant  
pass-through to PSPCL, and compensation under Art. 13.1.1(ii) 
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
1309
Nabha Power Limited v.  
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others
of the PPA for the withdrawal of FTP benefits post the cut off 
date of 02.10.2009, alternatively – State Commission dismissed 
the Petition holding that since the NPL had elected to avail 
benefits under the MPP 2009, it was precluded from claiming 
concurrent benefits under the FTP and withdrawal of benefits 
by DGFT did not constitute as a “Change in Law” within the 
meaning of Art. 13 of the PPA – Appellate tribunal also rejected 
the claims by the NPL and primarily the challenge to the 
post-bid withdrawal of fiscal incentives which were allegedly 
available earlier under the FTP and their classification as a 
“Change in Law” event under the PPA – Interference with:
Held: Not called for – Press Release dated 01.10.2009 would 
neither amount to “law” within the meaning conceptualized in 
the PPA, as it would only be the Notifications dated 11.12.2009 
and 14.12.2009 that would have amounted to “law”, nor it would 
thereby amount to “Change in Law” – Essential prerequisites 
that ought to be satisfied by the appellants in order to be eligible 
for the deemed export benefits are the claim for Deemed Export 
Benefits relates exclusively to “goods” and is inapplicable to any 
other thing which is not “goods”, such goods, though supplied, 
do not physically exit the territorial boundaries of the country; 
that the goods to be supplied must be “manufactured in India”; 
that there must be an act constituting “supply of goods” to the 
power projects for the project to claim Deemed Export Benefits; 
that the act of “supply of goods” is either by the main contractor 
and/or the sub-contractor to the concerned power project; and the 
supply is undertaken strictly in accordance with the procedural 
framework prescribed under ICB  – Embedded power plant of 
hundreds of Mega Watts would not be able to qualify as “capital 
goods” for entitlement of the appellants under the FTP for the 
deemed export benefits – Para 9.36 of the FTP requires that the 
manufactured good should have been brought into existence with 
a distinctive name, character, or use, such a feasibility impossible 
when it comes to the concerned power plants – Supply of goods” 
to a power plant, as is contemplated u/Para 8.2(g) of the FTP 
remains unfulfilled – Even at the time of bidding, the to-be then 
constructed Power Plant itself was deemed as the concerned 
capital goods for the deemed export benefits, implying that there 
was no distinct supply of goods by either a main contractor or a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.