Judgment :- This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein, and the orders of this Court, dated 22-12-1994 and 7-2-1995 and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Govind Swaminathan, Senior Counsel for M/s. N. S. Sivan, G. Anbumani and J. Sivanandaraj, Advocates for the petitioner and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, the court made the following order :- The Writ Petition is to quash the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, dated 9-11-1994 and the consequential orders, Spot Memo dated 30-11-1994 and O.C. No. 1480 of 1994 dated 5-12-1994 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Writ Miscellaneous Petition is for staying the operation of the said appellate order dated 9-11-1994 as well as the consequential orders, Spot Memo dated 30-11-1994 and O.C. No. 1480 of 1994 dated 5-12-1994. The Writ Petition was admitted on 7-2-1995 and interim stay was granted till today, and enabling the Central Government Standing Counsel to file their counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has now been filed by the respondents, opposing the stay application. A few facts may be noticed before passing final orders on the Writ Miscellaneous Petition. The petitioner Company is manufacturing what is called core spun thread out of the Nylon/cotton/polyester/cotton core spun yarn. The petitioner was filing classification list, classifying the said excisable goods as falling under Heading 54.02, but the Asstt. Collector classified them under Heading 56.06 by an order dated 28-3-1989. Against the said order dated 28-3-1989, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector, seeking classification under Heading 54.02. That appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner's classification under the Heading 54.02 was accepted. Against that order, the Department has gone on appeal to the CEGAT. It is stated that the petitioner has also filed some cross objections. While so, the respondents have adopted the finding of the Appellate Collector in respect of subsequent classifications and have insisted on duty under the Heading 54.02. The impugned order dated 9-11-1994 is an order passed on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Asstt. Collector's order as in the previous case. In other words the impugned order accepts the classification under the Heading 54.02 as claimed by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 9-11-1994 is an order passed on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Asstt. Collector's order as in the previous case. In other words the impugned order accepts the classification under the Heading 54.02 as claimed by the petitioner. Since this order is in favour of the petitioner, the Department has filed an appeal to the CEGAT. The petitioner is now unwilling to pay duty, on the classification of the goods under the Heading 54.02, which was the heading preferred by the petitioner, only because of the subsequent enhancement of duty under the Heading 54.02. In fact, it is stated that the duty under the Heading 54.02 is so heavy, viz., 69% that the petitioner Company will be crippled beyond all repair. It is precisely for this reason that the petitioner has now challenged in this Writ Petition, the appellate order dated 9-11-1994, which is practically in favour of the petitioner. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that when the matter is pending before the CEGAT, it is but proper that thestatus quoas on date should be continued and the enhanced duty under the Heading 54.02 should not be enforced. I am unable to agree with this contention.Prima facie, the petitioner has no justification in preventing the classification under Heading 54.02 because it was his plea that the goods come under the said Heading 54.02. And it is his plea that has been accepted by the Appellate Authority. Merely because the duty under the said heading has now been enhanced, it would not be proper for the petitioner to avoid payment of duty under the said heading. In any event, this court cannot grant any interim order in support of such contention. I am therefore, prima faciesatisfied that the request for stay in this case is not justified. Accordingly, the stay petition is dismissed. The interim stay already granted on 7-2-1995is vacated.