Specific authorisation is required for departmental appeals under excise law; a general mandate to appeal is insufficient.

A departmental appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act is maintainable only where the Collector forms a considered opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper and issues a specific authorisation to file the appeal against that particular order. A general empowerment to appeal, without identifying the challenged order, is insufficient. Because the authorisation here did not refer to the specific order and was found too vague, it was treated as not legal and proper, and the departmental appeal was rejected at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable when the Collector's authorisation to file the appeal was general and did not refer to the specific order challenged.

Analysis: Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act requires the Collector to form an opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper and to direct an authorised officer to file an appeal on his behalf. The authorisation must therefore be specific to the particular order and not merely a general empowerment to file an appeal in the case. Since the authorisation in the present matter did not mention the order appealed against and was too vague, it was held to be not legal and proper.

Conclusion: The departmental appeal was not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed at the threshold for want of a valid, specific authorisation under the governing excise provision.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal by the department under Section 35B(2) is maintainable only if the Collector's authorisation is specific to the particular order and reflects a considered opinion that the order is not legal or proper.

---