High Court Judges Can't Be Discriminated Based On Source Of Appointment, All Entitled To Same Service Benefits: Supreme Court

The CESTAT overturned a ₹36 lakh service tax demand against HCL, observing adherence to Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The case involved a service tax demand on HCL for allegedly availing CENVAT credit in violation of Rule 6(3A). The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that HCL had not followed the prescribed procedure for availing the credit. HCL contended that it had complied with the rules and provided supporting documentation. The CESTAT found that HCL had adhered to the requirements of Rule 6(3A) and quashed the service tax demand. This decision highlights the importance of following procedural rules in availing CENVAT credit and the need for tax authorities to carefully examine compliance before making demands.