Departmental appeal maintainability under section 35B required Larger Bench review amid conflicting Tribunal views on authorisation.

Conflicting Tribunal views on the effect of statutory authorisation for filing a departmental appeal under section 35B led the Tribunal to treat the meaning of "not legal and proper" as an important maintainability question. Because prior decisions had taken opposite positions, including in light of Rohit Paper Mills, the Tribunal held that authoritative resolution was needed. The matter was therefore sent to the President for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide maintainability and related issues; no determination was made on the excise demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable in view of the authorization under section 35B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the conflict of views on that question required reference to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that one line of authority treated the Collector's authorization itself as sufficient indication that the impugned order was considered not legal and proper, while another line of authority questioned the validity of such authorization in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rohit Paper Mills. The Tribunal further noticed subsequent differing views within the Tribunal, including decisions taking opposite positions on the same question. In that background, the Tribunal considered the expression 'not legal and proper' in section 35B to raise an important issue requiring authoritative resolution by a Larger Bench.

Conclusion: The matter was directed to be placed before the President of the Tribunal for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the question of maintainability and the connected issues.

Final Conclusion: No determination on the excise demand was rendered, and the controversy was left for decision by a Larger Bench on the procedural question arising from the departmental authorization.

Ratio Decidendi: Where conflicting Tribunal views exist on the effect of statutory authorization for filing a departmental appeal, the issue may be referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination.

---