CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – IV [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 49(RLM)CE/JPR/2023 dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (Appeals), Jaipur]

M/s. KEI Industries Ltd. …Appellant SP-919, 920 & 922, Phase-III, RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Distt. - Alwar VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST – Alwar …Respondent A-Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan - 301001 APPEARANCE:

Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rohit Issar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 20.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 20.02.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50352/2026 DR. RACHNA GUPTA M/s. KEI Industries Ltd., the appellant herein, is engaged in manufacturing of insulated wires and cables and stainless steelwires. The appellant filed refund claim of Rs.7,42,108/- on 11.10.2021 informing that up to the year 2017, they availed the Cenvat credit of Education Cess and other Cesses which were lying unutilized in their Central Excise/Service Tax returns for the month of June 2017. They tried to carryforward the unutilized cesses to GST Regime through form TRAN-1. However, the audit team objected the said carrying forward. Accordingly, appellant had filed the refund claim of the said unutilized Cenvat credit of Education Cess, Higher Education & Secondary Education Cess to be refunded in cash in terms of provisions of Section 142 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, hereinafter referred as CGST,2017. However, denying the eligibility, the refund claim was proposed to be rejected vide Show Cause Notice No. 37/2021-22 dated 15.12.2021. The said proposal has been confirmed vide Order-in- Original No. 17/2021-22 dated 10.01.2022. The appeal against the said order has been rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 49/2023 dated 06.10.2023. Being aggrieved, the appeal is filed before this Tribunal.

2. We have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rohit Issar, learned Authorized Representative for the Department.

3. Both the parties have jointly brought to notice that the issue involved in the present appeal is that whether after abolition of Education Cess in 2015, whether same could still be transited to GST Regime in the year 2017 or else the said amount is refundable. It has also been jointly acknowledged that two coordinate benches of this tribunal gave contradictory decisions on this issue. Hence the issue was referred to the Larger Bench. The Larger bench vide Order No. 08/2025 dated 20.11.2025 in Excise Appeal No. 50090/2024 has decided the issue in negative i.e. against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. It has been concluded as follows:

54. To summarize our conclusions:

In view of the cited decisions of Cellular Operators and Banswara Syntex, we hold that there was no provision under CCR 2004 to either to merge the blocked cesses with Excise Duty / Service Tax or to claim the blocked amounts as refund under Section 11B, even prior to 1.7.2017.

Under the earlier statutory provisions, the Rule 5 of CCR 2004 was specifically applicable to refund accruing on account of export of goods and services which has no applicability to result in any refund of the blocked cesses. Therefore, Slovak India case dealing specifically with Rule 5 has no application in the present case.

The Slovak India High Court case has been revisited and overturned by the Three Judge Bench of Bombay High Court in Gauri Plasticizers case. Even the Delhi High Court in the case of Cellular Operators has gone into the applicability of the Slovak India, Eicher and Samtel cases and has held that they cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Even on this ground Slovak India case cannot help the appellant to get the refund of cesses.

We also fully subscribe to the view of the Madras High Court DB Sutherland case to the effect that effectively Edu Cess and SHE Cess have become dead Cenva