Order
1. This appeal has been preferred from the decision of the Tribunal dated 8-6-1999 in which the Tribunal had dismissed the appellant's appeal on the ground that it itself had, in an earlier decision in respect of the very same parties in Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. CCE (1996) 83 ELT 334 (cegat) held against the appellant. The appellant has been granted time from 15-11-1999 to ascertain whether such earlier decision has been challenged by it. The appellant is not in a position to tell us whether such an appeal has been preferred or not even today. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.
2. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs.