Valid departmental authorisation to appeal depends on the Collector's application of mind, not necessarily express reasons in the order.

Section 35B(2) requires the Collector to form an opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper and to direct an authorised officer to file the appeal. The majority view treats that requirement as capable of being proved from the record as a whole, so the absence of an express recital of detailed reasons in the authorisation is not necessarily fatal where the surrounding material shows application of mind. The dissenting view regarded a general typed authorisation, without case-specific consideration, as insufficient. The commentary therefore turns on the standard for valid departmental authorisation to appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department's appeals were maintainable in the absence of a valid authorisation by the Collector under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The majority held that Section 35B(2) requires the Collector to form an opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper and to direct an authorised officer to file the appeal. Though the authorisation order did not expressly record detailed reasons, the surrounding record showed that the Collector had earlier reviewed the matter, had expressed the view that the appellate order was not correct, and had taken steps consistent with a concluded decision to appeal. In those circumstances, the absence of an express recital of reasons in the authorisation was not treated as fatal, and the authorisation was upheld as valid. The dissenting member, however, held that the document on record was only a typed general authorisation, did not show a proper exercise of the Collector's mind in the individual case, and was therefore insufficient to sustain the appeals.

Conclusion: The appeals were maintainable in the majority view because the authorisation under Section 35B(2) was valid; the preliminary objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Department's authority to file the appeals failed, and the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For an appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Collector's required opinion and authorisation may be established from the record as a whole, and the absence of an express recital of reasons in the authorisation itself is not necessarily fatal where the material shows application of mind.

---