https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84926 Rule 173G(2)(vi) was confined to cuttings or overwriting in gate-pass entries other than the date and time of removal, so corrections to the date and time of removal fell outside its scope. The penalty was also unsustainable because the duty demand had already been dropped and no intent to evade duty was found, leaving no foundation for penal action. The penalty was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:06:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84926 Rule 173G(2)(vi) was confined to cuttings or overwriting in gate-pass entries other than the date and time of removal, so corrections to the date and time of removal fell outside its scope. The penalty was also unsustainable because the duty demand had already been dropped and no intent to evade duty was found, leaving no foundation for penal action. The penalty was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84926