Judgment 1. The order impugned in the present writ petition has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Patna under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . That the said order is amenable to statutory appeal is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. He, however, submits that since the said order has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice, an exception to the general rule is made out and the petitioners should not be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal. He relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s. L.K. Ratna and Others, AIR 1987 SC 71 and Whirlpool Corporation V/s. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, 1998 8 SCC 1 . 2. We are afraid that the present case does not fall in the exceptional category as the impugned order has not been passed at the back of the petitioners. That the notices were given to the petitioners for personal hearing on 4.12.2007, 11.12.2007 and 18.12.2007, are not in dispute. The impugned order shows that the petitioners requested for inspection of the documents seized by the "Anti-Evasion" Branch of Central Excise HQRS, Patna which was permitted. The counsel for the petitioners submits that although the inspection was permitted, but the demand of the petitioners in supplying copies of documents was not acceded to. 3. We are satisfied that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts statutory remedy of appeal does not deserve to be bypassed. 4. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to pursue statutory remedy of appeal. We clarify that any observation made by us in the order shall not influence the consideration of the statutory appeal on merits. If by this time, the limitation in filing the appeal has expired, it is for the petitioner to make out a case for condonation of delay.