Natural justice in excise adjudication permits discretionary control of witness examination, absent material showing prejudice or intimidation.

In quasi-judicial excise adjudication, where no specific procedure governs witness examination, the authority may regulate cross-examination in a fair manner consistent with natural justice. The presence of investigating officers during examination is not inherently illegal; exclusion is justified only on material showing a real likelihood of intimidation, coercion, or influence, and no such material was shown here. The authority also has discretion over the sequence of cross-examination and need not accept an inflexible order preferred by a party, especially where that would delay completion of the enquiry. Limited fairness safeguards may still be preserved by recalling witnesses if later evidence requires it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the presence of the investigating officers during the cross-examination of witnesses in the excise adjudication proceedings was illegal or contrary to natural justice. (ii) Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to insist upon a fixed order of preference for cross-examining the witnesses summoned on a particular day.

Issue (i): Whether the presence of the investigating officers during the cross-examination of witnesses in the excise adjudication proceedings was illegal or contrary to natural justice.

Analysis: The enquiry under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held to be quasi-judicial, and no specific procedure was prescribed for regulating the conduct of witness examination. In that situation, the adjudicating authority was required to exercise discretion so that the proceedings remained fair and in conformity with natural justice. The Court accepted that in an appropriate case, if material is shown that a witness is likely to be intimidated or influenced, the investigating officers may be directed to remain outside while that witness is examined. However, on the facts, no material was produced to show that any witness had actually been intimidated or coerced, and the department was entitled to the assistance of the officers who had conducted the investigation.

Conclusion: The presence of the investigating officers was not held illegal, though the petitioner was entitled to seek exclusion of the officers in a particular case on proper material.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to insist upon a fixed order of preference for cross-examining the witnesses summoned on a particular day.

Analysis: The Court relied on the settled principle that, where no specific statutory procedure governs the order of witness examination, the authority may regulate the sequence in a manner consistent with fairness and effective disposal. It was found that insisting on an inflexible sequence chosen by the petitioner would impede completion of the enquiry, particularly where some preferred witnesses were unavailable. The authority also retained the ability to recall witnesses if later evidence made that necessary, which preserved fairness to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no absolute right to dictate the sequence of cross-examination, though it could seek recall of witnesses if later circumstances justified it.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the main challenges, but limited procedural directions were issued to preserve fairness in the adjudication proceedings; accordingly, the petition was dismissed with those directions.

Ratio Decidendi: In quasi-judicial fiscal adjudication where no specific procedure is prescribed, the authority has discretion to regulate witness examination in a fair manner, and procedural complaints succeed only when a real likelihood of prejudice or denial of natural justice is shown on material placed before the authority.

---