Statutory authorisation for departmental appeals is a condition precedent; absence of proof made the Tribunal appeal not maintainable.

An appeal by an Assistant Collector to the Tribunal was held defective where there was no proof that the Collector of Central Excise had formed the requisite opinion and issued authorisation under section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The statutory scheme required the Collector to decide that the impugned order was not legal or proper and to direct an authorised Central Excise Officer to appeal on his behalf. As no authorisation order or other material showing compliance was produced, the authorisation requirement was treated as a condition precedent to a valid appeal, and the appeal was rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal presented to the Tribunal by an Assistant Collector was maintainable in the absence of proof of the Collector of Central Excise having formed the requisite opinion and issuing authorisation under section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the Collector of Central Excise to be of the opinion that the order was not legal or proper and to direct an authorised Central Excise Officer to appeal on his behalf. That authorisation was a condition precedent to a valid appeal before the Tribunal. No authorisation order or material showing compliance with this requirement was placed on record despite opportunity having been granted. The appeal, therefore, suffered from a fatal defect of maintainability.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was rejected.

---