Cross-examination rights under Central Excise law are mandatory before Section 14 statements can be relied on in adjudication.

Refusal to permit cross-examination was treated as an appealable adjudicatory decision, so the statutory appeal was maintainable. Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held mandatory before statements recorded under Section 14 can be used in adjudication; the maker must be examined in the manner prescribed, and if the Revenue relies on the statement, the assessee must receive a real opportunity to cross-examine. Reliance on statements without following that procedure was unsustainable, and the impugned communication was set aside with the matter remitted for fresh adjudication in compliance with Section 9D and witness-examination requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lies against an order rejecting a request for cross-examination. (ii) Whether statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be relied upon in adjudication without following Section 9D of the Act and without offering cross-examination.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lies against an order rejecting a request for cross-examination.

Analysis: The appellate remedy under the Central Excise Act, 1944 extends to a decision or order of the adjudicating authority. The refusal to permit cross-examination was treated as an appealable adjudicatory decision, supported by prior judicial authority recognising statutory appeal as a means to challenge the invocation and application of Section 9D.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be relied upon in adjudication without following Section 9D of the Act and without offering cross-examination.

Analysis: Section 9D was held to be mandatory in adjudication proceedings. A statement recorded before a gazetted Central Excise officer can be treated as relevant only where the statutory conditions in Section 9D(1)(a) are satisfied, or where, under Section 9D(1)(b), the maker is first examined in chief before the adjudicating authority and a reasoned opinion is formed that the statement should be admitted in evidence. If the Revenue relies on such statements, the assessee must then be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the maker. Since the impugned refusal did not comply with this procedure, the reliance on the statements was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant cross-examination and the proposed reliance on the statements were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned communication was set aside and the matter was sent back for adjudication afresh in accordance with Section 9D and the principles governing examination of witnesses and cross-examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded during investigation under the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be used as substantive evidence in adjudication unless the statutory procedure for admissibility is first complied with, and where such statements are relied upon, the assessee must be given a real opportunity to test them by cross-examination.

---