Cross-examination and Section 9D safeguards govern reliance on witness statements; refusal without mandatory procedure is unsustainable.

Rejection of cross-examination was treated as an adjudicatory decision and was held amenable to statutory appeal. The forum further held that statements recorded under Section 14 could be relied on only after compliance with Section 9D, including the required examination-in-chief procedure and a justified decision before denying cross-examination. Because the impugned communication did not address the actual request and the mandatory safeguards were not followed, the refusal to permit cross-examination was unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication under the statutory procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lay against the rejection of the request for cross-examination. (ii) Whether the refusal to grant cross-examination and the impugned communication were consistent with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay against the rejection of the request for cross-examination.

Analysis: The appellate forum held that the rejection of cross-examination was an adjudicatory decision amenable to statutory appeal. It relied on prior authority recognizing judicial review against such refusals and treated the preliminary objection to maintainability as unsustainable.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to grant cross-examination and the impugned communication were consistent with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The appellate forum held that statements recorded under Section 14 could not be treated as relevant for proving their contents unless the conditions in Section 9D were satisfied. Where clause (a) was not invoked, clause (b) required examination-in-chief of the maker of the statement before the adjudicating authority, followed by an opinion that admission of the statement was justified in the interests of justice, after which cross-examination could be sought. The impugned communication did not answer the appellant's actual request and the mandatory procedure under Section 9D had not been followed.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit cross-examination was not sustainable, and the impugned communication was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with the statutory procedure governing reliance on witness statements.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded before a gazetted excise officer can be relied upon in adjudication only after compliance with the mandatory safeguards in Section 9D, including examination-in-chief where required and the corresponding opportunity for cross-examination; refusal to follow that procedure vitiates the adjudicatory action.

---