New Delhi, Nov 28 :    New Delhi, Nov 28:  The new formula for fertiliser subsidy proposed by the Expenditure Reforms Committee might not be implemented in spite of adequate support from the bureaucracy. Official circles say there are many practical problems in implementing them. The panel, headed by K. P. Geethakrishnan, suggested a uniform subsidy for all fertiliser plants. This would be fixed by taking the weighted average of differential subsidies. Under the existing formula, based on the Marathe panel's report, the subsidy for each unit is worked out separately, taking into consideration the feedstock cost, the cost of the plant and capacity utilisation. On the face of it, the Geethankrishnan panel's prescription looks attractive, but its implementation will not result in lowering the total quantum of subsidies. Sources say a uniform subsidy cannot be paid unless there is a common feedstock and the same price. Senior executives of the fertiliser industry met in the capital today to take stock of the situation. They are of the view that the bureaucracy would make a mess of the situation if it decides to implement the uniform subsidy formula. Fertiliser plants uses different feedstock such as naphtha ,fuel oil and natural gas. These units are in different locations. Even for gas-based plants, gas for plants located at landfall points is substantially cheaper than it is for those located along the HBJ pipeline. The difference works out to Rs 1,150 per thousand million cubic metres. There are significant differences in the prices of various feedstock. A few years ago, the ex-factory price of naphtha and fuel oil used to be the same in all locations. From April 1 1999 however, the ex-factory prices of naphtha differ across refineries. So do the rates of sales tax. In Gujarat, naphtha attracts a sales tax of 22 per cent, followed 20 per cent in Tamil Nadu. In Uttar Pradesh, it is only 6 per cent. The subsidy is calculated mainly on the cost of feedstock. Given that its price differs from plant to plant, it is impractical to have a uniform subsidy for all. Some of the fertiliser plants are depreciated while others are relatively new, with higher capital costs. Officials who understand the fertiliser industry say Geethakrishan could not do justice to the subject. Though a former finance secretary with experience in expenditure control, he is not known to be familiar with agriculture and related issues. The fertiliser subsidy has grown in line with the domestic cost of feedstock such as naphtha, fuel oil and gas. The increase in the administered prices of petroleum products helped the government mop up revenue. Some of these are now decontrolled. It is natural that the quantum of fertiliser subsidy goes up proportionately.