https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326508 Statements recorded before a gazetted Central Excise officer cannot be treated as substantive proof of their contents in adjudication unless the statutory conditions under Section 9D are satisfied. The maker must first be examined as a witness, and the adjudicating authority must then form the required opinion that admission of the statement is justified in the interests of justice. The analysis also applies the settled sequence under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, under which cross-examination follows examination-in-chief and cannot replace it. Because the adjudication relied on statements without following this procedure, the evidentiary basis was unsustainable and fresh adjudication was required after compliance with Section 9D. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326508 Statements recorded before a gazetted Central Excise officer cannot be treated as substantive proof of their contents in adjudication unless the statutory conditions under Section 9D are satisfied. The maker must first be examined as a witness, and the adjudicating authority must then form the required opinion that admission of the statement is justified in the interests of justice. The analysis also applies the settled sequence under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, under which cross-examination follows examination-in-chief and cannot replace it. Because the adjudication relied on statements without following this procedure, the evidentiary basis was unsustainable and fresh adjudication was required after compliance with Section 9D. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326508