Proper authorisation for Revenue appeals is mandatory; absence of conscious approval under the statute makes the appeal not maintainable.

A Revenue appeal under the Central Excises & Salt Act was held not maintainable because the Commissioner had not given proper authorisation under Section 35B(2). The statutory requirement is that the Commissioner must form a conscious opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper and must direct an authorised officer to appeal on his behalf. As the record showed no clear application of mind or valid approval to file the appeal, the authorisation requirement was not satisfied and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable in the absence of proper authorisation by the Commissioner under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The appeal can be filed only when the Commissioner forms an opinion that the order appealed against is not legal or proper and directs an authorised officer to appeal on his behalf. The record showed that the draft appeal and authorisation were placed together before the Commissioner, but there was no indication that he had applied his mind to the impugned order or approval for filing the appeal. In the absence of such conscious satisfaction and authorisation, the statutory requirement was not fulfilled.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable for want of proper authorisation and was dismissed.

---