JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-This group of appeals arising from diverse orders passed by Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CEGAT ) can be conveniently classified into three categories of cases. Category (1) consists of Civil Appeals Nos. 3105 (NM) of 1988; 1768 (NM) of 1990; 3284-85 (NM) of 1990; 5929 (NM) of 1990; and 6263 (NM) of 1995 filed on behalf of Revenue by the Collectors of Central Excise, concerned, wherein it is contended that preparations from silicone as manufactured by the respondent-manufacturers at the relevant time were covered by Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(1) and not by Tariff Item 15AA as contended by the respondent-manufacturers and as upheld by the Tribunal. Category (2) consists of Civil Appeals Nos. 1942-53 of 1988; 2162-70 (NM) of 1988; and 3657-72 (NM) of 1990 moved by M/s. Hico Products Ltd. being aggrieved by the diverse orders of the Tribunal which has taken the view that silicone oil manufactured by them and/or imported by them, as the case may be, was liable to be brought to tax under Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(1) as applicable at the relevant time of manufacture or import, as the case may be, and not under residuary Tariff Item 68 as contended by them for the purpose of determining the appropriate excise duty payable by them and/or countervailing duty payable by them on these goods. Category (3) consists of Civil Appeal No. 453 of 1986 moved by M/s. Reliance Silicon (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Civil Appeal No. 1507 of 1984 moved by M/s. Hico Products Ltd. These two appellants are manufacturers of preparations out of silicone. The grievance of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 453 of 1986 is against the Tribunal s order holding that silicone preparations prepared by them are covered by Tariff Item 15A(1) and would not be covered by Tariff Item 68. The grievance of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1507 of 1984 is of a similar nature, namely, that silicone preparations manufactured by them are wrongly held exigible to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) by the Tribunal. As common questions arise for our consideration, these matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Category (1)

2. For the sake of convenience we will first deal with the grievance voiced on behalf of the Revenue by the Collectors concerned in their appeals against the decisions of the Tribunal. It must be noted at the outset that the five Member Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay III v. Auxichem1 has exhaustively gone into the entire factual data dealing with this controversy and has taken the view that silicone preparations are not silicone but only preparations containing silicone for use in textile processing and by their very nature these preparations are akin to surface active preparations, wetting agents, softeners and as such classifiable under Item 15AA of the Central Excise Tariff. As the question for consideration is of a highly technical nature depending for its answer on the chemical characteristics of the products on the anvil of scrutiny, the decisions rendered by the Tribunal which is an expert body on the subject cannot be lightly interfered with in appeals unless it is demonstrated that the findings reached and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are such which no reasonable man well acquainted with the subject could arrive at or are otherwise erroneous in law or based on no evidence. Keeping in view these contours of enquiry in these statutory appeals we may now proceed to deal with the main contentions canvassed by learned counsel for the Revision in support of its appeals. It was vehemently contended before us that the five Member Bench of the Tribunal had erred in taking the view that silicone preparations were covered by Central Excise Tariff Item 15AA and not Tariff Item 15A(1) which held the field at the relevant time when the concerned goods were manufactured and