https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51870 CESTAT, New Delhi held the appellant's agreement with the owner was a lump-sum turnkey work contract, not a consultancy contract. Contract clauses showed the billing schedule governed progressive payments within the lump sum and that the owner's consultant acted as engineer-in-charge directing execution. The Tribunal found a work contract cannot be vivisected to tax residual process design and detailed engineering as consulting services. The impugned orders treating part of the contract as taxable consultancy were set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Sep 2025 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51870 CESTAT, New Delhi held the appellant's agreement with the owner was a lump-sum turnkey work contract, not a consultancy contract. Contract clauses showed the billing schedule governed progressive payments within the lump sum and that the owner's consultant acted as engineer-in-charge directing execution. The Tribunal found a work contract cannot be vivisected to tax residual process design and detailed engineering as consulting services. The impugned orders treating part of the contract as taxable consultancy were set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51870