Review authorisation under central excise law must go to the adjudicating authority, or the departmental appeal fails.

A departmental appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is maintainable only when the Commissioner authorises the adjudicating authority to seek review. Where the Order-in-Original was passed by the Additional Commissioner, authorisation given instead to the Deputy Commissioner was held insufficient. On that basis, the departmental appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable, and the rejection of the appeal was upheld. The ruling follows the settled position that review authorisation must be issued to the officer who adjudicated the matter, not to another officer.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is maintainable when the Commissioner authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to file the appeal instead of the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)' order rejecting the departmental appeal on the ground of defective authorization. The Tribunal noted that the question stood settled by its earlier decision, following the jurisdictional High Court, that the authorization to seek review under Section 35E(2) must be given to the adjudicating authority and not to another officer. Since the Order-in-Original had been passed by the Additional Commissioner, authorization given to the Deputy Commissioner was held insufficient to sustain the departmental appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion: The departmental appeal was not maintainable and the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revenue failed in its challenge because the statutory requirement for review authorization under Section 35E(2) was not complied with.

Ratio Decidendi: For a valid departmental appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner must authorize the adjudicating authority to seek review, and authorization to a different officer renders the appeal not maintainable.

---