ORDER
P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)
1. This is a stay application filed by M/s. Sundaram Textiles Ltd., Madurai against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai M/s. Sundaram Textiles Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as STL) had availed taxable services of Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (herein after referred to as JIPM) during the period 28-2-99 to 16-8-02, in the efficient running of their textile plant. As per the agreement between STL and JIPM, JIPM would provide STL services, for Total Productivity Maintenance (TPM) for finding solutions to reduce or eliminate major losses in the manufacturing system. As per the agreement, a representative of JIPM would attend to the implementation of TPM. As per the impugned order TPM helped to achieve increase in production, increased employee morale and job satisfaction. The programme reduced down time and unscheduled maintenance. The services rendered by JIPM had been decided to fall in the category of Management Consultant. On behalf of JIPM, the STL paid the service tax due of Rs. 1,58,642/- before the issue of show cause notice. While adjudicating the liability in relation to the impugned services rendered to STL during the material period, the original authority treated both JIPM and STL as assessee in respect of the impugned services. Accordingly, the service tax amount was demanded from STL/JIPM. However, in the original order, interest was demanded from STL. The original authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on JIPM under Section 76 and another Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 in addition to the penalty equal to the service tax imposed on JIPM under Section 78.
2. Before the lower appellate authority, it was argued that the service provided was intellectual property rights which became taxable only in the year 2003. As per the Order in Appeal, the above plea was not maintainable as the same had not been taken before the original authority. He found that the order demanding interest on the tax from the appellants not sustainable. He also observed that the appellants did not have locus standi to file an appeal on behalf of JIPM as regards the penalties imposed in the original order.
3. Arguing the stay application, the Ld. Consultant submitted that the Order in Original treated both STL and JIPM as assessees but the impugned services were received by STL. According to him, JIPM had transferred intellectual properties in the form of texts, videos and materials and that IPR services were not subject to tax during the material period. As the order in original had treated both JIPM and STL as the assessee, he prayed that the impugned order affirming penal liabilities on JIPM may be stayed till the final disposal of the appeal.
4. Ld. SDR opposed the above prayer and submitted that STL had no locus standi to file the instant application as no liability was fastened on them as per the impugned order.
5. After hearing both sides, I find that as per the impugned order, there is no liability to pay tax or penalty on the appellants STL as regards the services availed during 28-2-99 to 16-8-02. Penalties were imposed on JIPM only. Therefore, the stay application is infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)