JUDGMENT Rajendra Menon, J. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal under 35-G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed challenging an order dated 22.10.2012 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. By a common order passed as indicated hereinabove, more than 23 appeals have been decided and in one of the appeals decided pertaining to the Respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., having a sales depot Bhitoni, Post Office-Shahpura, District-Jabalpur, this appeal has been filed by the revenue. 3. It is said that the respondent is a Public Sector Company, engaged in manufacturing and marketing of petroleum product. It is case of the revenue in this appeal that the respondent is registered with the department as a dealer and receives duty paid indigenous furnace oil from it's refineries, it is further said that during the period from January, 2000 to October, 2000, they have charged and collected extra/excess amount from its customers in the name of excise duty and as the same has not been deposited, a show cause notice issued seeking payment of duty so collected. Finally the matter was adjudicated upon and a demand was raised for payment of excise duty. The appeal filed by the respondent/company having been rejected by the appellate authority vide Annexure-C on 9.2.2004, matter traveled to the appellate tribunal and the tribunal decided more than 21 appeals identical in nature from various parts of the country and, therefore, this appeal. 4. The only question involved in the matter, which was considered by the tribunal is to the effect as to whether the demand raised by the revenue in accordance with provisions of Section 11 D of the Excise Act is maintainable. It is found that the assessees were clearing petroleum products, which was received by them on payment of appropriate duty from various refineries, excise duty was being paid at the value prevailing at the time of clearance from refineries. Due to change in the budget as sometimes the price of the petroleum product are increased and at times it is decreased. The appellants and other similarly situated dealers were clearing goods from the depot at the revised price. It was the case of the revenue of all the cases that as the payment collected on such increase representing duty has not been deposited, the demand was made under Section 11D. The appellants and other similarly situated dealers were clearing goods from the depot at the revised price. It was the case of the revenue of all the cases that as the payment collected on such increase representing duty has not been deposited, the demand was made under Section 11D. The demand having been found to be not tenable, this appeal has been filed. 5. Shri Sushrut Dharmadhikari, learned counsel admitted the fact that with regard to “dealers of petroleum product” the issue stands settled by a judgment rendered by the tribunal in the case of M/s BPCL Vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2002 (144) EL 673, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, so also the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 2011 (272) ELT 654 (SC). However, he submits that as the question decided by the Supreme Court and the tribunal pertains to payment of duty by the dealer and not by the manufacturer and as the respondent/company is manufacturer, the principle laid down in this case will not apply. 6. The contention advanced that the respondent/company is manufacturer of petroleum product, therefore, is liable to pay the difference of duty, as made by Shri Sushrut Dharmadhikari is wholly unsustainable. Neither in the show cause notice nor in the proceedings held before the appellate authority is it indicated that the respondents establishment at Bhitoni District-Jabalpur is the manufacturing unit, on the contrary in the show cause notice issued by the respondent itself as contained in Annexure-E dated 22.2.2001, it is indicated that M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is having their depot at Bhitoni P.O.Shahpura District-Jabalpur are registered dealers with the Central Excise Department. They are engaged in the business of distribution of petroleum products. In Para-2 of the show cause notice, it is said that the noticee are receiving imported Furnace Oil from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. C/o IOTL (Indian Oil Tanking Ltd.) Navghar, District-Raigad Mumbai. It is nowhere stated that the respondents are manufacturing and selling the products from their depot at Bhitoni, on the contrary, it is seen that they are receiving the products from the manufacturers as indicated in Para-2. For which duty is paid at the manufacturing unit i.e. the Refinery. 7. It is nowhere stated that the respondents are manufacturing and selling the products from their depot at Bhitoni, on the contrary, it is seen that they are receiving the products from the manufacturers as indicated in Para-2. For which duty is paid at the manufacturing unit i.e. the Refinery. 7. In the order passed by the appellate authority also, it is indicated that the appellants are the registered dealers with the Central Excise Department and are engaged in trading of petroleum product by way of storing, selling and distributing the same through the depot situated in Bhitoni. It is also indicated in this order that the appellants are receiving the duty paid petroleum product including Furnace Oil, both imported and indigenous, from various resources. It is, therefore, clear from there assertions that the respondent is a dealer and not a manufacturer. Even before the tribunal, when the matter was pending, there was nothing to indicate that the respondent is termed as manufacturer and not a dealer. The tribunal treated the respondent to be dealer and not a manufacturer and, therefore, the question of law already decided in the case of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Supra) pertaining to a dealer has been applied and the matter has been decided. 8. The respondent admit that in the case of dealer, the question of payment of duty under Section 11 D stands decided by the judgments referred to by the tribunal in Para-6 & 7 and it was only tried to be emphasized in the appeal that the respondent is not a dealer but is a manufacturer. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent's unit at Bhitoni is a manufacturer, on the contrary, from the initiation of proceedings at the time of issuance of notice till conclusion, they are treated as dealer. As far as the demand of duty from the dealers are concerned, the matter is decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Supra) referred to in Para-6 & 7 of the impugned judgment of the tribunal and once the tribunal has decided the matter based on the principles settled, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. The substantial question as is raised by the revenue in the appeal does not arise for consideration. 9. The substantial question as is raised by the revenue in the appeal does not arise for consideration. 9. Accordingly, finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed at this stage without notice to the respondents.