Natural justice and cross-examination in excise adjudication upheld where documentary evidence and unretracted statements supported the orders.

A writ petition challenging excise duty, penalty and confiscation was held maintainable because the dispute raised a pure question of law on alleged breach of natural justice, and the alternative appeal remedy could not be effectively pressed at the final stage. On merits, refusal to allow cross-examination did not vitiate the orders where the adjudication rested on seized documents, ledgers, bills, stock records and payment particulars, together with a factual nexus between the petitioner and the marketing concerns. The allegation that statements were recorded under coercion also failed, as there was no retraction or other material proving threat or inducement, and statements recorded under statutory summons retained evidentiary value.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy; (ii) whether refusal to permit cross-examination and the allegation that statements were recorded under coercion vitiated the orders sustaining excise duty, penalty and confiscation.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to a pure question of law based on alleged violation of natural justice, and the matter had remained pending for a long period after admission. Since the alternative remedy was itself an appeal on a substantial question of law before the High Court, the objection was held to be one that could not be effectively pressed at the final stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether refusal to permit cross-examination and the allegation that statements were recorded under coercion vitiated the orders sustaining excise duty, penalty and confiscation.

Analysis: The impugned orders were founded not merely on statements but also on seized documents, ledgers, bills, stock records and payment particulars, all of which were furnished to the petitioner. The authorities found a factual nexus between the petitioner and the marketing concerns, and cross-examination was held unnecessary on those facts. The allegation of coercion failed because there was no retraction by the persons concerned or other material showing threat or inducement, and statements recorded under statutory summons retained evidentiary value. The principle that the need for cross-examination depends on the facts of each case was applied, along with the burden on the person alleging coercion to prove it.

Conclusion: The refusal of cross-examination did not vitiate the orders, and the allegation of coercion was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The orders confirming excise duty, penalty and confiscation were sustained, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudication is supported by documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances, denial of cross-examination does not by itself amount to a breach of natural justice, and an allegation of coercion or inducement must be proved by specific material, especially where the statements have not been retracted.

---