Statutory authority to file an appeal is mandatory; later authorisation cannot cure an unauthorised filing.

An appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act had to be preferred by the Collector or by a person validly authorised to act for him. Where an Assistant Collector signed, verified and filed the appeal before any authorisation was granted, the later authorisation could not cure the defect because the statutory power to appeal had not been validly exercised at the time of filing. Compliance with the authorising provision was therefore essential to competence. The appeal was held incompetent and not maintainable for want of authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal filed and verified by an Assistant Collector without prior authorisation from the Collector under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act was maintainable.

Analysis: The appeal was signed, verified and filed before the date of the Collector's authorisation. The statutory power to prefer the appeal vested in the Collector, and another person could act on his behalf only upon valid authorisation. As the authorisation was subsequent to the filing, it could not validate the earlier unauthorised act. The appeal right being statutory, compliance with the authorising provision was necessary for competence to appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was incompetent and not maintainable, as it had been filed by a person who lacked authority to prefer it.

---