IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.15073 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.1.2011 M/s Texas Wollen Mills (P) Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. Union of India & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks a direction to re-credit the refund amount in Duty Entitlement Passbooks (DEPBs) of the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it imported goods and paid customs duty. Customs duty was paid by way of debit in the DEPB Scrips. The petitioner applied for re-credit of the said benefit on the basis of its entitlement which was allowed in its favour vide order dated 26.3.2009 but the said order was not carried out and re-credit was not actually made. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been admitted that refund claim was duly sanctioned in favour of C.W.P. No.15073 of 2010 the petitioner on 26.3.2009 for re-credit in the respective scrips but since original scrips were not produced by the petitioner, the re-credit could not be given. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, stand taken by respondent has been challenged and it has been stated that the petitioner deposited original DEPB scripts as well as FMS scrips with respondent No.3 before passing of order dated 26.3.2009 in terms of procedure laid down in notification dated 14.9.2007 and this fact has been acknowledged in the order dated 26.3.2009 itself. As per letter dated 9.11.2010 from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana to the Regional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ludhiana, the request has been made for issuance of duplicate DEPB scrips, as the file was missing at its end. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of letter dated 9.11.2010 issued from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, the original file was with the department and it has been missing from their office and in such case, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit as per order dated 26.3.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to rebut the submission. 6. Accordingly, we direct respondent No.3 to issue necessary documents to the petitioner to enable it to get the re- credit, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 may secure the duplicate DEPBs for 2 C.W.P. No.15073 of 2010 the purpose. Respondent No.3 will pay the statutory interest, as may be due for the delay in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 20, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3