2021 (8) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ai Motor India Ltd. (M/s.Hyundai, for short) and due to change in the model / version of the cars manufactured by M/s.Hyundai, the parts supplied by the appellant were returned. Later, appellant supplied necessary parts to M/s.Hyundai. They requested for the refund of the excise duty paid on the parts that were returned by M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd. by filing the above refund claim. The original authority observed that the appellant did not produce necessary documents to establish that the refund is not hit by unjust enrichment. Consequently, the refund claim was rejected vide OIO dt. 28.12.2011. Against this, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was contested by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed order to argue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly remanded the matter to the original authority to reprocess the refund claim after granting the appellant reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and also to produce documents. This order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is quite legal and proper and there are no grounds to interfere with this order; that the appeal filed by the appellant against such remand order is without any merits and also only to protract and delay the matter of refund. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the original authority has rejected the refund observing that the appellant has not produced necessary documents to process the refund. It is stated in the said order t....