Natural justice and section 9D safeguards bar reliance on excise statements without disclosure, hearing, and cross-examination.

Adjudication under the Central Excise Act cannot rest on third-party statements or undisclosed material unless the statutory safeguards for evidentiary use are followed. The text states that non-relied upon documents were supplied only after the final hearing, effective personal hearing was not granted after disclosure, cross-examination of relied-upon witnesses was denied, and the procedure under section 9D was not complied with. In that setting, the impugned order was set aside because it violated natural justice and treated statements as evidence without first testing their admissibility in the prescribed manner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order confirming demand and penalties was vitiated for non-supply of non-relied upon documents, denial of effective personal hearing, denial of cross-examination of witnesses, and non-compliance with the procedure under section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The record showed that the non-relied upon documents were supplied only after the final hearing, depriving the appellants of a meaningful opportunity of defence. The adjudicating authority also did not grant an effective personal hearing after such supply. The statements of third parties were relied upon without first following the mandatory procedure under section 9D, which requires the statement to be tested in the manner prescribed before it can be treated as relevant evidence. The request for cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon was also denied. In the absence of compliance with section 9D and the basic requirements of fair hearing, the impugned order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was set aside as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without following section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded during excise investigation cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence unless the statutory procedure for their relevancy is followed and the affected party is afforded a fair opportunity of rebuttal, including cross-examination where required.

---