JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. - This Writ Petition has been preferred challenging the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division- III, Jamshedpur dated 29th January, 2010 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the writ petition) mainly on the ground that no adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, hence, the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, , Division-III, Jamshedpur is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petitioner is manufacturer of Black Steel Tubes, Galvanized Steel Tubes, nuts and bolts. The goods were manufactured by the petitioner and, hence, the petitioner was liable to make the payment of excise duty at ad valorem basis. The goods were removed from the factory premises. 3. There was a dispute about the total cost of the goods. Thus, on the basis of valuation arrived at by the respondents, the excise duty was required to be paid by the petitioner, which was not paid and, hence, after giving showcause notice, Order-in-Original was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-III, Jamshedpur on 29th January, 2010 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the writ petition). 4. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the Order-in-Original, an appeal was preferred under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. There was time limit to prefer an appeal within 60 days and maximum condonable period is 30 days. Thus, maximum within period of 90 days, an appeal ought to be preferred. In the facts of the present case, as the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) after 284 days delay, the delay was not condoned. 6. As the delay was not condoned, the petitioner is now challenging the Order-in-Original on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that notice of hearing was given on three different occasions. The said notices were also received by the employee of the petitioner, as stated in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that notice of hearing was given on three different occasions. The said notices were also received by the employee of the petitioner, as stated in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. Despite the service of notice of hearing, the petitioner had not availed the opportunity and Order-in-Original was passed and, hence, it cannot be said as ex-parte order passed by the respondents because the petitioner has chosen not to remain present before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-III, Jamshedpur. 8. First notice of hearing was served upon the employee of the petitioner as on 31st July, 2009 and the date of hearing was 5th August, 2009 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents dated 29th October, 2015). 9. Second time also, notice of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-III, Jamshedpur. This notice was served upon the employee of the petitioner on 16th November, 2009 and the date of hearing was 18th November, 2009. The notice and acknowledgment thereof is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents dated 19th September, 2018. 10. Third time also, notice of hearing was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-III, Jamshedpur, which was served upon the employee of the petitioner on 3 rd December, 2009 and the date of hearing was 7th December, 2009. 11. Thus, thrice the notice was issued and served upon the employee of the petitioner, but, the petitioner had not availed the opportunity of being heard given by the respondents and, hence, the Order-in-Original was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-III, Jamshedpur on 29th January, 2010 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this writ petition) and the liability of approximately Rs. 5 Lakhs and penalty of approximately Rs. 5 Lakhs have been imposed upon the petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, we see no reason to entertain this Writ Petition because there is no violation of principle of natural justice. Opportunity of being heard was given on more than one occasions. For any reason whatsoever, the petitioner had chosen, not to remain present before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-III, Jamshedpur. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, we see no reason to entertain this Writ Petition because there is no violation of principle of natural justice. Opportunity of being heard was given on more than one occasions. For any reason whatsoever, the petitioner had chosen, not to remain present before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-III, Jamshedpur. The service of the notice upon the employee of the petitioner has been accepted by the petitioner. It is not a case of the petitioner that the notice was served upon the foreigner. He was an employee of the petitioner, who had received the notice issued by the respondents. Thus, there is no violation of principle of natural justice, as alleged by the petitioner. Moreover, statutory appeal which was preferred by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also preferred with such delay, which cannot be condoned, looking to the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 13. Hence, there is no substance in this Writ Petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.