ORDER
1. The application is for restoration of the appeal, ordered to be dismissed, on 3.8.2000 for failure to comply with the terms of the stay order.
2. The representative of the applicant hands over written submission. It is first contended in these submissions that failure to deposit the amount was due to “financial crisis”. There being no material in support of this claim, it cannot be accepted. The second contention is that, by application of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement in Cotspun Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (113) ELT 353, the demand is not sustainable since the duty was paid in pursuance of an approved classification list. This was a ground that was taken before us in the stay application no doubt, for the reason that the Supreme Court judgement is no longer good law. By virtue of the provisions having retrospective application under section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000, to the effect that the demand of duty cannot be held invalid solely on the ground that the classification has been approved notwithstanding the judgement to the contrary to any Court of law.
3. The application is therefore dismissed.