JUDGMENT : By reason of the dismissal of appeal by the CEGAT, the order of the appellate authority remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner has been upheld. The order of remand requires the Assistant Commissioner to examine the applicability of Rule 6(b)(i) instead of Rule 6(b)(ii) to the goods produced on job work basis by the appellant. We make it clear that while considering the application of Rule 6(b)(i), the Assistant Commissioner will give an opportunity to the appellant to contend and/or produce material in support of his contention that the goods produced by him on job work basis for Hindalco are not comparable to the goods manufactured and sold by him. The Assistant Commissioner will decide whether Rule 6(b)(i) is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, or not. 2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.