(1) IN Para 12 of the tribunals order, the tribunal has quoted with approval the statement of fact in the order of the Collector to the effect that one of the requirements of Rule 56C, namely, holding of a licence both by the nary manufacturer and the secondary manufacturer is an essential requirement that in. this case no material was produced to show that the primary manufacturer was holding central excise licence. (2) LEARNED counsel for the appellant says that both the primary and Bondary manufacturers did possess central excise licences at the relevant time and that the said licences were also produced before the tribunal but that the tribunal has failed to notice the same. (3) LEARNED counsel further says that with effect from March 1986, Rule are does not operate and the Notification No. 214/86 requires merely filing a letter and that this requirement was fulfilled in February 1988 which is a sufficient compliance. He says that this point was also argued before the tribunal but that the tribunal has not dealt with the same. (4) IF these are the contentions of the learned counsel, it is open to him approach the tribunal and invite its attention to the said circumstances and for appropriate orders according to law. We express no opinion on the companies or otherwise of the said contentions. (5) WITH the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.