Appeal authorisation valid despite no signature where the file shows the Collector applied mind and approved the appeal.

An appeal authorisation under the Central Excises and Salt Act was upheld despite being unsigned, because the governing rule required an attested copy of the Collector's direction, not the Collector's personal signature on the authorisation itself. The Collector's duty was to form the opinion that the impugned order was not legal or proper and to direct an authorised officer to appeal. The record showed that the relevant facts were placed before him, he approved the proposal to appeal, and he later approved the draft grounds. The application of mind could therefore be established from the file, and the preliminary objection to the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal authorization was invalid because it was unsigned and because it did not that the Collector had formed the requisite opinion and applied his mind before directing the appeal.

Analysis: The authorisation was treated as sufficient because the procedural rule required an attested copy of the direction for filing the appeal, not necessarily the Collector's personal signature on the document. Under Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the Collector's function was to form the opinion that the order appealed against was not legal or proper and to direct an authorised officer to appeal. The record showed that the relevant facts were placed before the Collector, that he approved the proposal to appeal, and that the draft grounds were later submitted to and approved by him. The requirement of application of mind could be proved from the file and was not dependent only on the face of the authorisation.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections failed. The authorisation was valid and the Collector's opinion to prefer the appeal could not be successfully challenged at the preliminary stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires the Collector to be of the opinion that an appellate order is not legal or proper, the validity of the appeal authorization can be supported by the record showing application of mind, and the absence of the Collector's personal signature on the authorization itself is not fatal when the procedural rule only requires an attested copy of the direction.

---