Cross-examination under Section 9D is mandatory before relying on investigation statements in central excise adjudication.

Statements recorded during central excise investigation cannot be relied upon in adjudication unless Section 9D procedure is properly followed, including effective cross-examination where it is necessary to test truth and relevance. Merely fixing a date for cross-examination, without completing the process, does not satisfy the statutory safeguard. The commentary notes that the safeguard is substantive and cannot be treated as a formality, while proceedings should also avoid unnecessary delay or abuse. On this basis, reliance on the statements was held unsustainable and the matter required remand for fresh adjudication after granting a proper opportunity for cross-examination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statements recorded during investigation could be relied upon in adjudication without effective cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the matter was liable to be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: Section 9D governs the relevance of statements recorded by a Central Excise officer and permits reliance on such statements in adjudication only after the prescribed procedure is followed. Where cross-examination is sought and found necessary for testing the truth and relevance of the statements, it is not an empty formality. The adjudicating authority had initially fixed the matter for cross-examination, but thereafter proceeded to decide the case without properly completing that process. The appellate authority's view that mere issuance of a date and non-appearance on that date was sufficient to satisfy Section 9D was found incorrect. The statements could not be treated as admissible evidence unless the procedural safeguard contemplated by Section 9D was duly complied with, while also ensuring that the proceedings are not indefinitely delayed or abused.

Conclusion: The reliance on the statements without proper compliance with Section 9D was unsustainable, and the matter required remand for re-adjudication after granting effective opportunity for cross-examination.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh consideration before the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In adjudication under the Central Excise law, statements recorded during investigation cannot be relied upon as evidence unless the procedural requirement of Section 9D is satisfied, including effective cross-examination where required.

---