Coherent authorisation and matching appeal papers are essential; inconsistent documents rendered the departmental appeal not maintainable.

A departmental appeal must be supported by coherent authorisation and matching appeal documents; where the authorisation referred to one order, the statement of facts referred to another, and the refund figures in the papers also differed, the record showed lack of proper application of mind. Because the appeal did not correspond consistently with the orders sought to be challenged, it was held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable in view of the inconsistencies between the authorization, statement of facts and appeal papers.

Analysis: The authorization referred to one order-in-appeal, while the statement of facts referred to a different order-in-original. The appeal papers also disclosed inconsistencies in the refund amounts mentioned. The record showed that the authorization had been issued without proper application of mind, and the appeal did not correspond coherently with the orders sought to be challenged.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---