Cross-examination objection under Central Excise law failed where the party avoided adjudication and later challenged the penalty.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustained because the appellant did not participate in adjudication despite repeated opportunities, made no effective written submission, did not seek cross-examination at the proper stage, and did not retract the statements relied upon. On those facts, the Tribunal held that a party who avoids the adjudicatory process cannot later defeat the penalty by raising a purely technical objection that Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not complied with. The challenge based on denial of cross-examination therefore failed and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be interfered with on the ground that Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not complied with and cross-examination was not granted.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the penalty on the footing that statements recorded during investigation were relied upon without offering cross-examination under Section 9D. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not participate in the adjudication despite repeated opportunities, did not make any effective written submission, did not seek cross-examination before the adjudicating authority, and did not retract the statements relied upon. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the appellant could not take advantage of a purely technical objection after avoiding the adjudicatory process.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Section 9D failed and the penalty was sustained; the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that consciously avoids participating in adjudication and does not seek cross-examination at the appropriate stage cannot later defeat a penalty solely on a technical objection under Section 9D.

---