Valid authorisation under Customs law is mandatory; revenue appeal failed because the defect was never cured.

An appeal by the revenue under the Customs Act, 1962 was held not maintainable because no fresh authorisation had been issued by the competent authority under the correct statutory provision. Although the appeal was initially filed on the basis of an authorisation under section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and later refiled in the prescribed customs appeal form, the Commissioner did not cure the defect by issuing valid authorisation. As the Registry objections remained unrectified, the appeal was dismissed for want of valid authorisation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed by the revenue was maintainable in the absence of a fresh authorisation by the competent authority under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The appeal was filed on the basis of an authorisation issued under section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was later refiled in the form prescribed under rule 6(1) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. However, the Commissioner did not issue a fresh authorisation under the appropriate provision of the Customs Act, 1962. The defects pointed out by the Registry were not rectified, and the authorisation remained defective.

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

---