Section 9D compliance governs reliance on recorded statements in adjudication, and unsupported use of such statements is unsustainable.

Statements recorded before a gazetted Central Excise officer cannot be treated as substantive proof of their contents in adjudication unless the statutory conditions under Section 9D are satisfied. The maker must first be examined as a witness, and the adjudicating authority must then form the required opinion that admission of the statement is justified in the interests of justice. The analysis also applies the settled sequence under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, under which cross-examination follows examination-in-chief and cannot replace it. Because the adjudication relied on statements without following this procedure, the evidentiary basis was unsustainable and fresh adjudication was required after compliance with Section 9D.

---

---

Issues: Whether statements recorded during investigation could be relied upon in adjudication without examining the deponents in chief and without complying with the procedure governing admissibility of such statements.

Analysis: The evidentiary value of statements recorded before a gazetted Central Excise officer depends on the conditions prescribed by Section 9D. In proceedings under the Act, such statements cannot be treated as substantive proof of their contents unless the maker is first examined as a witness and the adjudicating authority thereafter forms the requisite opinion that the statement should be admitted in the interests of justice. The order also applies the settled order of examination under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, under which cross-examination follows examination-in-chief and cannot stand alone. As the impugned adjudication relied on statements without following this procedure, the evidentiary foundation was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The statements could not be relied upon in the manner adopted by the adjudicating authority, and the matter required fresh adjudication after complying with Section 9D.

Ratio Decidendi: In adjudication proceedings, a recorded statement is not admissible to prove its contents unless the statutory conditions for its relevance are first satisfied and the maker is examined in the manner required by law.

---