Valid authorisation and sufficient cause are essential for Tribunal appeals; a blanket post-filing authority and unexplained delay fail.

An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B(2) required a valid, order-specific authorisation based on the Collector's prior opinion that the impugned order was not legal or proper; a blanket authority issued after the appeal was filed did not satisfy that statutory requirement, so the appeal was incompetent. The request for condonation of delay also failed because no sufficient cause was shown: no steps were taken within the limitation period, and later office inconveniences were not enough to excuse the delay. The appeal was therefore rejected on both maintainability and limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the purported authorisation issued by the Collector satisfied the requirements for filing an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal; and (ii) whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether the purported authorisation issued by the Collector satisfied the requirements for filing an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the Collector first to form an opinion that the order of the Collector (Appeals) was not legal or proper and then to direct a Central Excise Officer authorised by him to file the appeal. The document produced was a blanket authority, not confined to any particular order, and was issued after the appeal had already been filed. It was therefore not an authorisation in the manner contemplated by the governing provision and could not validate the appeal.

Conclusion: The authorisation was invalid and the appeal was incompetent on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay showed no sufficient cause. The record disclosed that no steps were taken during the original limitation period and that the delay was attributed only to routine office inconveniences occurring thereafter. Such circumstances did not justify condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on maintainability and on limitation, and was therefore rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 35B(2) must be preceded by a valid, order-specific authorisation formed after the Collector's opinion on the legality or propriety of the impugned order, and delay in filing will not be condoned absent sufficient cause.

---