Assessable value, redemption fine and penalty cannot be enhanced without specific supporting material justifying the increase.

Enhancement of the assessable value of imported copper scrap was not interfered with because the Revenue produced no further specific material to justify a higher value, and the objection that the order was not speaking did not supply a legal basis for further increase. Enhancement of redemption fine was also refused because no evidence showed a higher margin of profit or other material warranting revision, with margin of profit being only a guiding factor. Enhancement of penalty was rejected since no concrete ground was shown for increasing the amount already imposed. The Commissioner's order was left undisturbed and the Revenue's appeal failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the enhancement of the assessable value of imported copper scrap was liable to be interfered with at the instance of the Revenue; (ii) whether the redemption fine required enhancement; and (iii) whether the penalty required enhancement.

Issue (i): Whether the enhancement of the assessable value of imported copper scrap was liable to be interfered with at the instance of the Revenue.

Analysis: The assessment was enhanced from the declared value on the basis accepted by the respondents and the Revenue did not indicate any further specific material to justify a higher value. The objection that the order was not a speaking order did not establish any legal basis for further enhancement.

Conclusion: The challenge to the enhanced assessable value was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine required enhancement.

Analysis: The Revenue did not place evidence to show a higher margin of profit or any other material warranting enhancement of the redemption fine. Margin of profit is only a guiding factor and does not require exact arithmetical computation.

Conclusion: The request for enhancement of redemption fine was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty required enhancement.

Analysis: The quantum of penalty depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and no concrete ground was shown for increasing the penalty already imposed.

Conclusion: The request for enhancement of penalty was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed in full and the order of the Commissioner was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Enhancement of assessable value, redemption fine, and penalty cannot be interfered with or increased in the absence of specific supporting material showing legal or factual justification.

---