Effective cross-examination and consideration of material submissions required fresh excise adjudication after natural justice breaches were identified.

Denial of effective cross-examination and failure to consider material submissions breached principles of natural justice in the excise adjudication. The Tribunal noted that witness statements were relied on without testing them under Section 9D, cross-examination was wrongly refused because statements were unretracted, and permitted cross-examination was not substantially conducted. It also found that the explanation concerning packing material procured by other franchisees manufacturing the same branded goods was not addressed. A full remand for fresh adjudication was therefore considered unobjectionable, with no substantial question of law arising.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's full remand for fresh adjudication, owing to denial of effective cross-examination and non-consideration of material submissions, gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that statements relied upon in the adjudication had not been tested in accordance with Section 9D, and that cross-examination of several requested witnesses was denied on the erroneous premise that unretracted statements did not require cross-examination. It also found that cross-examination allowed for certain witnesses was substantially not conducted. Further, the adjudicating authority had failed to address the material explanation concerning procurement of packing material by other franchisees manufacturing the same branded goods. These deficiencies constituted breach of principles of natural justice and required a full fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The remand order was unobjectionable and raised no substantial question of law; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

---