Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

15 SCC 785Supreme Court of India2016#1245 most cited

What is Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise authority for?

An assessment order is invalid if it relies on statements of third-party witnesses without granting the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine them, as this constitutes a fundamental breach of natural justice. No addition can be sustained if based solely on un-cross-examined statements.

91

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Andaman Timber Industries v CCE · cross-examination right · natural justice violation · reliance on third-party statements · invalid assessment · section 143(3) · section 68 · section 69C · bogus purchase · un-cross-examined statements

Also reported as

38 GSTR 117314 ELT 641

Sections most often in play

Section 69CSection 143(3)Section 68Section 132Section 10(38)Section 131Section 148Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 282a(1)section 65asection 282apenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 140aretraction of statementsection 269spurposive interpretationbogus long term capital gainreal income theorysection 271e

Judgments citing Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

Alpesh K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1144/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…rson from whose possession document was found. Thus, without cross examination, such documents loses its evidentiary value in view of the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785 and catena of other judgments which has been given before us. 33. One very important point which has been raised by the ld. DR before us that there are series of SEBI orders in respect of scrip of PLI. With respect to three SEBI orders referred by the ld. DR before us, analysis of all these orders has been filed before us by the ld. Counsel. From…

Jiten K. Ajmera (Legal Heir of Late Kishore H. Ajmera), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…rson from whose possession document was found. Thus, without cross examination, such documents loses its evidentiary value in view of the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785 and catena of other judgments which has been given before us. 33. One very important point which has been raised by the ld. DR before us that there are series of SEBI orders in respect of scrip of PLI. With respect to three SEBI orders referred by the ld. DR before us, analysis of all these orders has been filed before us by the ld. Counsel. From…

Ajmera Pharmasure Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…rson from whose possession document was found. Thus, without cross examination, such documents loses its evidentiary value in view of the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785 and catena of other judgments which has been given before us. 33. One very important point which has been raised by the ld. DR before us that there are series of SEBI orders in respect of scrip of PLI. With respect to three SEBI orders referred by the ld. DR before us, analysis of all these orders has been filed before us by the ld. Counsel. From…

Reena A Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1111/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…rson from whose possession document was found. Thus, without cross examination, such documents loses its evidentiary value in view of the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785 and catena of other judgments which has been given before us. 33. One very important point which has been raised by the ld. DR before us that there are series of SEBI orders in respect of scrip of PLI. With respect to three SEBI orders referred by the ld. DR before us, analysis of all these orders has been filed before us by the ld. Counsel. From…

Avani J Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1110/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…rson from whose possession document was found. Thus, without cross examination, such documents loses its evidentiary value in view of the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785 and catena of other judgments which has been given before us. 33. One very important point which has been raised by the ld. DR before us that there are series of SEBI orders in respect of scrip of PLI. With respect to three SEBI orders referred by the ld. DR before us, analysis of all these orders has been filed before us by the ld. Counsel. From…

International Financial Services Ltd Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1109/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…rson from whose possession document was found. Thus, without cross examination, such documents loses its evidentiary value in view of the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785 and catena of other judgments which has been given before us. 33. One very important point which has been raised by the ld. DR before us that there are series of SEBI orders in respect of scrip of PLI. With respect to three SEBI orders referred by the ld. DR before us, analysis of all these orders has been filed before us by the ld. Counsel. From…

Rathod Jewellers, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1385/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1385/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rathod Jewellers, ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), 660 Raviwar Peth, Pune- Pune 411002 Vs. Maharashtra PAN: AAFFR5463H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by: Shri Suhas Bora Department by: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing: 25-11-2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21-02-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JM: The appeal filed by the a…

Zula Merchandisc Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 68

…o the assessee according to the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Swati Bajaj (supra) case as well as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Oriental Power Cables Ltd reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC), Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 14 9 I.T.A. No.553/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zulu Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. SC 2117) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) (Cal) [210…

Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 99/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…o the assessee according to the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Swati Bajaj (supra) case as well as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Oriental Power Cables Ltd reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC), Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 14 SC 2117) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) (Cal) [210 ITR 103]. 34. In view of the above discussion, we notice that so far as the s…

Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 100/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…o the assessee according to the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Swati Bajaj (supra) case as well as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Oriental Power Cables Ltd reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC), Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 14 SC 2117) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) (Cal) [210 ITR 103]. 34. In view of the above discussion, we notice that so far as the s…

Gilt Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1447/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

…o the assessee according to the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Swati Bajaj (supra) case as well as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Oriental Power Cables Ltd reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC), Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 14 SC 2117) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) (Cal) [210 ITR 103].” 34. In view of the above discussion, we notice that so far as the s…

Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle -2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…o the assessee according to the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Swati Bajaj (supra) case as well as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Oriental Power Cables Ltd reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC), Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 14 SC 2117) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) (Cal) [210 ITR 103].” 34. In view of the above discussion, we notice that so far as the s…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

…ajaj 15 I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited (supra) case as well as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Oriental Power Cables Ltd reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC), Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 14 SC 2117) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) (Cal) [210 ITR 103].” 34. In view of the above discussion, we notice that so far as the s…

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

…o the assessee according to the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Swati Bajaj (supra) case as well as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Oriental Power Cables Ltd reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC), Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 14 SC 2117) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) (Cal) [210 ITR 103].” 34. In view of the above discussion, we notice that so far as the s…

Sanjeev Agrawal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1519/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…also no specific name of the entry operator is known with whom assessee had undertaken the alleged accommodation entry. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE 314 ELT 641 (SC). 6.18. On the issue relating to addition made towards brokerage/commission as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on the aforesaid alleged bogus LTCG accommodation entry, ld. Counsel submitted that it is based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion. There is nothing brought on record to establish as to who is the entry operator to whom assessee…

Sanjeev Agrawal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1518/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…also no specific name of the entry operator is known with whom assessee had undertaken the alleged accommodation entry. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE 314 ELT 641 (SC). 6.18. On the issue relating to addition made towards brokerage/commission as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on the aforesaid alleged bogus LTCG accommodation entry, ld. Counsel submitted that it is based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion. There is nothing brought on record to establish as to who is the entry operator to whom assessee…

Pinky Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 984/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…ar: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC) has held that the adjudicating authority's denial of the assessee's claim to cross-examine the witnesses through the statements of those witnesses was made the basis of the order, was a serious flaw which nullified the order since it was a violation of the principles of natural justice. vii) Also in the case of Principal Commissioner of Inco…

M/S. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 983/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…ar: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC) has held that the adjudicating authority's denial of the assessee's claim to cross-examine the witnesses through the statements of those witnesses was made the basis of the order, was a serious flaw which nullified the order since it was a violation of the principles of natural justice. vii) Also in the case of Principal Commissioner of Inco…

M/S. Gateway Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 982/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…ar: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC) has held that the adjudicating authority's denial of the assessee's claim to cross-examine the witnesses through the statements of those witnesses was made the basis of the order, was a serious flaw which nullified the order since it was a violation of the principles of natural justice. vii) Also in the case of Principal Commissioner of Inco…

Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…ar: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC) has held that the adjudicating authority's denial of the assessee's claim to cross-examine the witnesses through the statements of those witnesses was made the basis of the order, was a serious flaw which nullified the order since it was a violation of the principles of natural justice. vii) Also in the case of Principal Commissioner of Inco…