Valid authorisation for departmental appeal is mandatory; defective Collector approval made the appeal not maintainable.

A departmental appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act was maintainable only if the Collector first formed an opinion that the impugned order was not legal or proper and then issued valid authorisation. The authorisation produced here showed no such application of mind and was treated as defective. Because proper authorisation had to accompany the appeal at filing, the defect was not cured by describing it as a mere procedural lapse. The appeal was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed for want of valid authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable in the absence of proper authorisation by the Collector under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Analysis: The appeal could be filed on behalf of the Collector only when the Collector had formed an opinion that the order of the lower authority was not legal or proper and had issued a valid authorisation accordingly. The authorisation produced in this case did not show such application of mind and was treated as defective. The procedural rules also required that the appeal be accompanied by proper authorisation at the time of filing, and the absence of valid authority could not be cured merely by describing it as a procedural lapse.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental appeal under Section 35B(2) is not maintainable unless the Collector issues a valid authorisation after forming the requisite opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper.

---