ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. On 25-7-1997 the Bench observed that authorisation issued by the Collector is not in proper form inasmuch as it was defective. However, chance was given to the department to enable to produce the notesheet indicating application of mind by the Collector and indicating reasons for directing filing of appeal.
2. Shri Madan, learned Departmental Representative accordingly files a copy of the notesheet order for perusal of the Bench.
3. Section 35B(2) reads as under :
“The [Commissioner of Central Excise] may, if he is of opinion that an order passed by the Appellate [Commissioner of Central Excise] under Section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or the [Commissioner (Appeals)] under Section 35A, is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer authorised by him in this behalf hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order.”
4. Accordingly, as envisaged under Section 35B(2), the Collector is required to apply his mind and come to a conclusion that the order passed by the authorities below is not legal and proper. Before filing such appeal the authorisation does not indicate application of such mind. The notesheet placed before us also do not indicate whether the Collector has applied his mind before giving an authorisation. Notesheet order indicate that office has put a note before him stating that grounds of appeal and authorisations are put up for approval and signature with reference to the Order-in-Appeal No. 309/91-BRD. Strictly speaking after applying his mind he should have given authorisation. Here authorisation was also placed before him. Further, he has not indicated anything whether order is appealable or not. In this circumstances, it is not compliance with the provisions of Section 35B(2). Accordingly, appeal is dismissed for want of proper authorisation. Ordered accordingly.