Denial of cross-examination vitiates adjudication when witness statements are relied on without following statutory procedure.

Reliance on witness statements without granting cross-examination, and without a reasoned order on the request for cross-examination, was treated as a breach of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the adjudication order materially depended on those statements, and that the statutory procedure under Section 9D had not been followed. Because the defect went to the root of the adjudication, the proper course was to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration after allowing cross-examination of the identified witnesses.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order was vitiated for denial of cross-examination of the key witnesses whose statements were relied upon, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The order rested materially on statements of persons whose examination was sought by the appellants. The record showed that a request for cross-examination had been made, but the adjudicating authority had not recorded a reasoned order on that request. In such circumstances, reliance on those statements without following the statutory procedure under Section 9D and without affording cross-examination amounted to a breach of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the defect went to the root of the adjudication and that the proper course was to set aside the order and send the matter back for fresh consideration after permitting cross-examination of the identified witnesses.

Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination vitiated the adjudication, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after granting the appellants an opportunity to cross-examine the key witnesses.

---