B.S.V. Murthy, Technical Member. - In this case both the revenue and as well as the party are in appeal. M/s. Purnima Advertisements & Promotion Pvt. Ltd. (‘Purnima’ for short) are engaged in providing advertisement services and filed a refund claim for Rs. 42,68,686 on the ground that they have paid excess service tax on full gross amount billed by them to media without considering the discount of 12 per cent offered by them to the clients. The refund claim was rejected and on appeal filed by Purnima, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that on merits Purnima is eligible for the refund claim but held that the observations of the Original Adjudicating Authority regarding unjust enrichment is required to be upheld. Accordingly, the refund claim stands rejected. Revenue has filed appeal against the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the refund claim on merits.

2. Heard both the sides. We find that the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) that appellant is eligible for refund on merits is correct. The master circular issued by the board has clarified that merely canvassing advertisement for public on commission basis is not classifiable under the ta