ORDER D.S. Sinha, J. - Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add a party. 2. Heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Counsel representing the respondents. 3. The petitioner is private limited Company engaged in the manufacture of wood and articles of wood and plywood such as commercial land decorative plywood, flush doors, panel doors and block boards etc. and holds a Central Excise Licence for the same. 4. It appears that under the provisions of Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the petitioner submitted a list of goods manufactured by it to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Sitapur classifying its products under the sub-head 4410.90 of chapter 44 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Tariff Act), as envisaged by Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) read with Section 2 of the Tariff Act. The classification submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the Assistant Collector with modification. The Assistant Collector passed an order dated 6th January, 1992 holding that the products manufactured by the petitioner ought to be classified under sub-heading 4408.90. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 6th January, 1992 passed by the Assistant Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad u/s 35 of the Act. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also prayed for stay of the realisation of the excise duty in accordance with the classification approved by the Assistant Collector. The prayer for interim relief was rejected. 6. From the averments made in the petition, it appears that the appeal has already been heard on 27th July, 1992 and the order and judgment on the appeal are awaited. In the meantime, the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Shahjahanpur has called upon the petitioner to pay excise duty u/s 11A of the Act. The demand notice issued to the petitioner in this regard is dated 19th June, 1992, a photostate copy whereof is annexure 4' to the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by this notice. 7. In the meantime, the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Shahjahanpur has called upon the petitioner to pay excise duty u/s 11A of the Act. The demand notice issued to the petitioner in this regard is dated 19th June, 1992, a photostate copy whereof is annexure 4' to the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by this notice. 7. The contention of Shri Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, before us is that the products manufactured by the petitioner are liable to be classified under sub-heading 4410.90 and not under sub-heading 4408.90 as the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 18th October, 1989 in the case of M/s. Wood Craft Products Ltd. has already held so. This decision was followed in other cases, for instance in the case of Veneers Plywood Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Shri Mathur further contends that the question about the appropriate classification of the products of the petitioner is already sub judice before the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad and judgment in that regard is awaited. According to him, it will not be appropriate to call upon the petitioner to pay the excise duty demanded. He further submits that at present he has no remedy as the judgment is still to be pronounced in his appeal. 8. Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents, however, contends that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner, in substance, wants this Court to grant an interim relief only and the petition is directed against the refusal of the Collector (Appeals) to grant stay. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the rival contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties and the interest of justice would be served by calling upon the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad, the respondent No. 4, to pass final order and judgment on the appeal of the petitioner, hearing whereof has already been concluded on 17th July, 1992, within a specified period and prohibiting the enforcement of the demand made vide impugned notice dated 19th June, 1992 in the meantime. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we direct the respondent No. 4 to pass final order on the appeal of the petitioner, noticed above, within a period of ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment before him. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we direct the respondent No. 4 to pass final order on the appeal of the petitioner, noticed above, within a period of ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment before him. We further direct the respondent No. 4 to take into account the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, referred to earlier, while deciding the appeal, if the same has not already been decided. In the meantime the demand of the excise duty made vide impugned demand notice dated 19th June, 1992 shall remain stayed. Subject to the observations and directions made above, the petition is disposed of finally.