Cross-examination in adjudication cannot be refused when third-party statements are relied on; denial breaches natural justice and requires remand.

Where adjudication rests on third-party statements, a timely request for cross-examination cannot be rejected merely because it is made at the hearing stage; refusal to permit cross-examination vitiates the proceeding as a breach of natural justice. The prior decision on the small-scale exemption notification in the appellant's own case had also to be considered in the fresh adjudication. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for de novo adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon in the adjudication order violated principles of natural justice, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication after considering the earlier decision on the exemption notification.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had relied upon statements of several persons recorded during the proceedings, but the request for their cross-examination was made before the conclusion of the personal hearing and before adjudication was completed. Such a request could not be rejected merely on the ground that it was made at the time of hearing. The refusal to allow cross-examination, despite reliance on those statements, amounted to a breach of natural justice. The issue regarding availability of the small-scale exemption notification had already been decided in the appellant's own case, and that earlier decision was required to be kept in view in the fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination was unsustainable, and the matter had to be sent back for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was remitted for de novo adjudication after considering the prior decision and the request for cross-examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudication rests on statements of third parties, a timely request for cross-examination cannot be refused merely because it is made at the hearing stage, and denial of such opportunity vitiates the proceeding for breach of natural justice.

---