A320 Captain noted the entire APU electrical generator was deferred instead of taking the time to just defer the APU electrical indication; reporting his air carrier's increased use of 'no-time' as a reason for deferrals of major systems. Captain refused aircraft until the correct deferral was applied.

Narrative

While flight planning; flight crew noticed APU Generator was deferred inoperative. The original Write-up said the generator was operating normally; just the volts indication was incorrect. The sign-off said 'No-Time'; so the Generator was deferred 'inoperative.' As we were flying at night; the crew decided the generator was a necessary piece of equipment rather than depart with it inoperative just because of a perceived lack of time to fix it; or defer correctly (which was not done in the first place as no deferral sticker was noted in cockpit). Since the Captain has been told numerous times; 'if you don't refuse it; Maintenance will not address it;' a refusal was given to Dispatch.Maintenance met in cockpit and they tested APU (it was operating normally except for the bad [voltage] indication); the deferral was amended and we departed with this major aircraft system 'Operative.' Maintenance had to be called back to cockpit to complete the MEL item and install a deferral sticker. It seems most maintenance stations have completely deleted this required step from their job description. To conclude; the 'No-Time' deferral seems to be gaining popularity with air carrier maintenance personnel. This is my second occurrence in about 30 days where the 'No-Time' deferral was used incorrectly (in this case taking away a major aircraft system for no reason). If a deferral was done; why not the most correct option over the quickest? It seems to me both would have taken the same amount of time; although one required a bit of thought.