cta_decision CTA Case No. 1102811028 2026-06-23

JT INTERNATIONAL (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 lllll ll llll lllllll lllllllllllllll llll ll~lllllmlllllll lll llllllllll 22-000552-0063 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.11028 JT INTERNATIONAL (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF DECISION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Vill age Makati City ATTY. AYESHA RANIA B. GUJLING-MATANOG ATTY. DOROTHY JOY A. CAY-AN ATTY. ANGELINA RAYANNA 0. MAPAGU Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City LEAGOGO LAW OFFICE Unit 1908, 19th Floor, Tower 2 High Street, South Corporate Plaza 26th Street comer lith Avenue, Bonifacio Global C ity 1634 Taguig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on June 23, 2026, a Decision was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, June 25, 2026. Atty. Maria.J="' Chan-Te Executive o Court III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION JT INTERNATIONAL CTA CASE NO. 11028 (PHILIPPINES), INC. , Me m b e r s: Petitioner, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, ,~. UN 23 2026 Jl/:OOAM Respondent. 6 : ------------ X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� -X DECISION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review filed on November 11 , 2022 , by petitioner JT International (Philippines), Inc. (petitioner) , against respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent or CIR) , seeking the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for erroneously paid excise taxes in the total amount ofP33 ,127,290.00 .1 � THE PARTIES Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly organized under Philippine law. 2 It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)-Revenue District Office No. 124-Excise LT Audit Division II, under Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) 005- 519-158-00000, with address at 11th and 12thFloor, Ore Central Tower, 9th Avenue Corner 31 st Street, Bonifacio Global City 1635, Taguig City, NCR, Fourth District, Philippines.3 Docket - Vol. I, p. 32, Petition for Review, Prayer. 2 Docket- Vol. II , pp. 696-707, Exh ibit " P- I��. 3 Exhibit " P-20", USB (Ex hibit " P-44").

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philipp ines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Respondent is the duly mandated person authorized to implement the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), including, among others, the power to credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction, subject to rules and issuances of the BIR, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR.4 He may be served with summons, pleadings and other court processes at Room 703 Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building, Senator Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue. Diliman, Quezon City.s THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT On September 7, 2022, petitioner filed with the BIR an administrative claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in the total amount of P33, 127,290.00, representing the alleged erroneously paid excise taxes attributable to internal revenue stamps that were allegedly damaged during the flood brought about by Typhoon Ulysses on November 12, 2020.6 On November 11, 2022, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review.7 On February 7, 2023, respondent filed his Answer. 8 Thereafter, on July 17, 2023, respondent filed an Amended Answer,9 raising the following special and affirmative defenses: (1) the Court has no jurisdiction over the case; (2) a refund of excise tax is available only in cases of erroneous or illegal payment, but in the instant case, the payment of the excise tax was proper; and (3) refund of excise tax was a convenient way for petitioner to recover its losses, considering that it could no longer be recoverable as a loss nor be entitled to replacement since there has been laches on the part of petitioner. Docket - Vol. !, p. 563, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Facts Stipulated by Both Parties, par. I. I d. Docket - Vol. I, pp. 563- 564, JSFI, Facts Stipulated by Both Parties, par. 2; Exhibits " P-11 " to " P-11-1 ", Docket - Vol. II, pp. 753- 776. Docket - Vol. I, pp. 7- 37. /d. at 91 - 105. Docket - Vo l. I, pp. 145- 158, attached to Docket- Vol. I, pp. 126-129, Respondent 's Pre-Trial Brief, Refer to Docket- Vol. I, pp. 164-165, Notice of Resolution dated July 27, 2023 .

DECISION CTA Case No . 11028 JT International (Philippines), Inc. v. Com missioner of Interna l Revenue x----------------------- ------------ ---------------------------------- ------------ --------x On July 19, 2023, respondent transmitted to the Court the BIR Records pertaining to this case, consisting of three (3) folders. 1o The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on July 20, 2023; 11 but was eventually reset and held on November 7, 2023. 12 Prior thereto, petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief was filed on July 14, 2023 , 13 while Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief was submitted on July 17, 2023 .1 4 On November 29, 2023, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, 15 which the Court approved in its Resolution dated January 9, 2024,16 thereby deeming the termination of the Pre-Trial. The Pre-Trial Order dated February 20, 2024 was thereafter issued.17 Trial then ensued, during which both parties presented and formally offered their respective testimonial and documentary evidence. Petitioner presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: (1) Mr. Roald Johann Lee Yap (Mr. Yap) , 18 petitioner's Market Supply Chain Director; (2) Mr. Khris P. Quindoza,19 then petitioner's Tax Manager and presently its Tax Director; and (3) Ms. Carla A. Bawa,2o the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA). 2 1 The Report and Supplemental Report of the ICPA were submitted on April 8 , 2024,22 and June 2, 2024,23 respectively. 10 /d. at 160-162, Compliance dated July 19,2023. 11 /d. at I08-109, Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated February 15, 2023. 12 Docket- Vol. I, p. 125, Resolution dated July 17, 2023; Docket - Vol. I, p. 172, Notice of Resett ing dated October 4, 2023; Docket- Vol. I, pp. 174-174-C and 175- 177, Minutes of hearing held on, and Order dated, November 7, 2023, respectively. 13 Docket - Vol. I, pp. 11 2- 12 1. 14 /d. at 126-129. 15 /d. at 563-573. 16 /d. at 577- 578. 17 !d. at 590-602. 18 Exhibit "P- 12'', Docket - Vol. I, pp. 38- 5 1; Docket - Vol. I, pp. 603-603-D, and 604-607, Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 21, 2024, respectively. 19 Exhibit �'P- 14", Docket - Vol. I, pp. 183- 190; Docket - Vol. I, pp. 603-603-D, and 604-607,; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 2 1, 2024, respecti vely. 20 Exhibit " P-43"; Docket- Vol. I, pp. 649-662; Docket - Vo l. II, pp. 668-A-670, Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, July 2, 2024. 21 Docket - Vol. I, p. 603-E, Oath ofCommission dated February 2 1, 2024; Docket - Vol. I, pp. 603-603 -D, and 604- 607, Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 2 1, 2024, respectively. 22 Exhibit " P-1 5", Docket - Vol. I, pp. 609-642. 23 Exhibit �'P-35'', Docket - Vol. I, pp. 645-F-645-GG.

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines) , Inc. v. Commission er of Internal Revenue X-------------- ------ ---- ------ ------------ ------- ---------- ------ ----------- ----- --- -- ---X On July 12, 2024 , petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence, 24 to which respondent filed his Comment (on Petitioner's Formal Offer ofEvidence) on July 16, 2024. 25 In the Resolution dated October 3 , 2024 ,26 the Court admitted all of p etitioner 's offered exhibits . For his part, respondent presented the testimony of Revenue Officer Leonila DC. Manuel.27 On November 12, 2024, Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence was filed ,28 to which petitioner filed its Comment (to Respondent's Formal Offer ofEvidence) on November 15, 2024 .29 In the Resolution dated January 27 , 2 025 ,30 the Court admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits. Subsequently, on February 17, 2025, respondent filed his Memorandum,31 while petitioner's Memorandum was submitted on March 3 , 2025.32 On March 3 , 2025, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave (to dispose of the flooded goods which are all in bad state/ condition subject matter of this case) [Motion for Leave], 33 to which respondent submitted his Opposition [Re: Petitioner's Motion for Leave (to dispose of the flooded goods which are all in bad state/ condition subject matter of this case)] on April 2 , 2025.34 In the Resolution dated May 29, 2 025, 35 the Court noted without action p etitioner's Motion for Leave due to petitioner's failure to establish that the subject flooded goods are under custodia legis, a condition that would warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion due to its exclusive jurisdiction over the property. The present case was submitted for decision on June 30, 2 0 2 5 .36 " 24 Docket - Vol. II, pp. 672-687. 25 !d. at 9 19-921. 26 /d. at 929-930. 27 Docket - Vol. I, pp. 135- 140, Exhi bit "R-5"; Docket- Vo l. II, pp. 931-932, Order dated November 7, 2024. 28 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 935-938. 29 !d. at 942- 944. 30 /d. at 952- 95 3. 31 !d. at 956-970. 32 /d.at974- 1004. 33 /d. at i008-III l. 34 !d. at I029- 1036. 35 !d. at 1047- 1051. 36 /d. at I052, Notice of Resolution dated June 30, 2025.

DECISION CTA Case No. 1 1028 JT International (Philippines), Inc. v. Commiss ion er of Inter nal Revenue X-------- --------------- ---------- --------------------------------------------------- -----X THE ISSUE The parties submit the following issue for this Court's resolution: WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OR ISSUANCE OF A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE IN THE AMOUNT OF P33, 12 7 ,290 .00, REPRESENTING THE ALLEGED ERRONEOUSLY PAID EXCISE TAXES ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGED INTERNAL REVENUE STAMPS DURING THE FLOOD THAT TOOK PLACE ON 12 NOVEMBER 2020, CAUSED BY TYPHOON ULYSSES. 37 Petitioner's Arguments Petitioner argues that it is not guilty of laches because Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 7-2014 does not apply to its case and, there is no way to file for a replacement of damaged stamps already affixed to finished goods. Petitioner likewise maintains that this Court validly acquired jurisdiction over the present case. It further contends that Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,3B cited by the BIR in its denial letter dated March 30, 2023, is not applicable to its claim and, therefore, could not validly serve as the basis for the denial thereof. Finally, petitioner asserts that it is entitled to a refund or tax credit of the excise taxes component of the flooded goods destroyed by Typhoon Ulysses. Respondent's Counter-arguments Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the Court has no jurisdiction over the present case. He argues that a refund of excise taxes is proper only in instances of erroneous or illegal payment and that, in this case, the payment of the excise taxes was valid and proper. Respondent further posits that refund of excise tax was a convenient way for petitioner to recover its losses that may no longer be recoverable as losses or be the subject of replacement due to petitioner's alleged laches. Finally, respondent maintains that claims for tax refund are strictly construed against the taxpayer and in favor of the government. "' 37 Docket- Vol. I, p. 590-602, Pre-Trial Order, IV. Issue to be Tried or Resolved. 38 G.R. No. 222480, November 7, 20 I8 [Per J. Tijam, First Division].

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x THE COURT'S RULING After a careful and thorough examination of the parties! submissions and the records of the case, the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the present Petition for Review. Accordingly, the case must be dismissed. Petitioner's administrative claim for refund need not have been filed through the Internal Revenue Stamp Integrated System (IRSIS). As a preliminary matter, and in relation to the issue of jurisdiction, the Court shall first address respondent1S insistence that petitioner's administrative claim should have been filed through the IRSIS within two years from the payment of the subject excise taxes. Respondent, invoking the First-In-First-Out method for accounting for internal revenue stamps under RR No. 7-2014,39 avers that petitioner failed to timely file its administrative claim through IRSIS within the two-year period prescribed from the payment of the excise taxes.4o The Court is not persuaded. For one, none of the provisions of RR No. 7-2014 requires the filing of an administrative claim for refund through IRSIS. The regulation merely prescribes the affixture of new internal revenue stamps on imported and locally manufactured cigarettes, whether intended for domestic sale or export, and provides for the use of IRSIS in the ordering, distribution, and monitoring of such stamps under Section 1 thereof. Moreover, Section 8 of RR No. 7-2014 merely provides for the replacement of internal revenue stamps already in the possession of local manufacturers of cigarettes when such stamps have become spoiled, damaged, rendered unfit for affixture to cigarette products, or are otherwise found to be bad orders. 39 SUBJECT: Prescri bing the Affixture of Internal Revenue Stamps on Imported and Locally Manufactured Cigarettes and the Use of the Internal Revenue Stamp Integrated System (IRS IS) for the Ordering, Distribution and Monitoring Thereof. 40 Docket - Vol. II, p. 960, Respondent's Memorandum.

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Second, it is Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 17-2018,41 and not RR No . 7-2014, that governs the processing of claims for the issuance of tax refunds or tax credit certificates involving taxes erroneously or illegally collected under Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: II. Claims for issuance of tax refund/TCC on income tax, erroneous payment of taxes under Section 204 (C) and recovery of tax erroneously or illegally collected under Section 229 of the Tax Code, as amended, and other taxes, except VAT under Section 112 A. Issuance of eLA 1. An eLA shall be issued to cover the audit/verification of claims for issuance of tax refund / TCC other than VAT through the Electronic Letter of Authority Monitoring System (eLAMS) or Case Management System (CMS) of the electronic Tax Information System (eTIS). 2 . The existing procedures in the request, issuance, approval, as well as in the updating of the status of the eLA, through eLAMS / CMS-eTIS, shall be observed by all concerned offices. B. Claims of taxpayers registered with the RDO 1. The RDO shall process all claims for tax refundjTCC filed by their registered taxpayers- claimants which shall be reviewed by the Assessment Division prior to transmittal to the Regional Director. 2. The Regional Director shall be the authorized approving official for claims amounting to Ten Million (10M) Pesos and below. For claims exceeding 10M Pesos, the reports on the said claims shall be signed by the Regional Director, who shall recommend the approval/ issuance of the tax refund/TCC. 3. The docket for claims exceeding 10M shall be transmitted to the TARD for further review prior to approval of the revenue officials in accordance with the thresholds set in item no. I.B.3 hereof. 41 SUBJECT: Amending Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 89-20 17 and Certain Provisions of RMC No. 54-2014 Regarding the Processing of Claims for Issuance ofTax Refundffax Credit Certificate (TCC) in Relation to Amendments Made in the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as Amended by Republic Act No. 10963, Known as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN).

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines) , Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x- ------- --- ----- ---- --- ---------- --- ---- --- --------- --------- ----------- ---------- -------x 4. All memorandum reports recommending claims within the applicable thresholds in item I.B.3 hereof shall be signed by the ACIR - AS prior to final approval by the DCIR - OG/ CIR. C. Claims of taxpayers registered with the LTS All claims filed with and processed by the Divisions under the LTS shall be reviewed by the HREA prior to approval by the ACIR- LTS. (Emphasis supplied) As earlier noted, petitioner is a taxpayer registered with BIR-Revenue District Office No. 124 - Excise LT Audit Division 11.42 Thus, under item II.C of RMC No. 17-2018, its claim for refund under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, should be filed with and processed by the appropriate Division under the Large Taxpayers Service (LTS) , subject to review by the Head Revenue Executive Assistant (HREA) prior to approval by the Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the LTS. Moreover, despite the non-filing of the present administrative claim for refund through IRSIS, the records show that petitioner's administrative claim was in fact acted upon by then OIC-Assistant Commissioner Mr. Jethro M. Sabariaga through his letter dated March 30, 2023,43 as mandated under RMC No. 17-2018. Thus, there is no basis for respondent's assertion that the filing of an administrative claim for refund through IRSIS, within two years from the payment of the excise tax, is a requirement for the validity of petitioner's administrative claim. Having settled the foregoing matter, the Court now proceeds to determine the issue of jurisdiction. Governing provisions for refund claims Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, respectively provide: ~ 42 Exhibit "P-20", USB (Exhibit "P-44''). 43 BIR Records- Folder 3 of 3 (Exhibit "R-4"), pp. 98-99, Exhibit "R-3".

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ){-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------){ SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. - The Commissioner may (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, that a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund. SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or fllegally Collected. - No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collect ed, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged t o have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid. (Emphasis supplied) Th e foregoing prov1s1on s are u nequivocal. A taxpayer seeking a r efund or tax cr edit must first file an administr ative claim with th e Commission er with in two years fr om the date of p aym en t of the tax before institu ting a judicial claim. The administrative and judicial claims mus t both be filed within the same t wo -year prescriptive period. ~

DECISION CTA Ca se No. 11028 JT Internationa l (Philippines) , Inc. v . Commiss ioner of Interna l Revenue Pa ge 10 of 19 x- ---- ---- -- --- ------ ------ --------------------- ------------------------- -----------------x Timeliness of the filing of the claim is mandatory and jurisdictional. Consequently, the Court cannot take cognizance of a judicial claim for refund that is filed either prematurely or beyond the period prescribed by law. It is worthy to stress that with respect to the judicial claim, tax law explicitly provides that it be filed within two years from payment of the tax "regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment."44 Moreover, the foregoing provisions allow the recovery only of taxes erroneously or illegally collected. An "erroneous or illegal tax" is defined as one levied without statutory authority, or upon property not subject to taxation, or by some officer having no authority to levy the tax, or one which is some other similar aspect is illegal.45 In other words , what can be refunded or credited is a tax that is erroneously, illegally, excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected. In short, there must be a wrongful payment because what is paid, or part of it, is not legally due.46 Therefore, for the present claim for refund or tax credit to prosper, petitioner must establish not only the timely filing of both its administrative and judicial claims, but also that the excise taxes sought to be refunded were erroneously, illegally, excessively, or otherwise wrongfully collected. Petitioner failed to establish that its administrative and judicial claims for refund were timely filed. In the present case, the Court, upon verification of the submitted Summary of Excise Tax Payments,47 together with the corresponding Excise Tax Returns for Tobacco Products (BIR Form No. 2200-T) and eFPS Payment Details, confirmed that the subject excise taxes were paid on various dates from November 27, 2019 to September 23,2020, as reflected in the table below: 44 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. Nos. 180740 & 1809 10, November I I, 20 19 [Per J. Hernando, Second Division]. 45 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 188497, Apri l 25, 20 12[Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division], citing the definition provided in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 486. 46 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. Nos. 187485 eta/. , February 12, 20 13 [Per J. Carpio, En Bane]. 4 7 Docket - Vol. 11, pp. 729- 730, Exhibit "P-4".

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Excise/ Payment/ Raw Import/ Date of Payment Amount TIF Removal Mat/ CMA 3,200,000,000.00 FG 600,000,000.00 194,248,550.00 A Excise Payment FG CMA Nov. 27, 201948 36,176,250.00 39,200,000.00 B Excise Payment FG CMA Dec. 5, 201949 700,000,000.00 625,000,000.00 1 Excise Payment FG CMA Jan. 7, 2020 50 34,315,000.00 50,705,000.00 2 Excise Payment FG CMA Jan. 24, 202051 4 7,550,000.00 63,120,000.00 3 Excise Payment FG IMP Jan. 24, 202052 1,000,000,000.00 4 Excise Pay ment FG CMA Jan. 24, 202053 24 ,610,540.00 2 1,943,850 .00 5 Excise Pay ment FG CMA Jan. 31, 202054 400,000,000 .00 6 Excise Pay ment FG IMP Jan. 30, 202055 1,870,000.00 7 Excise Pay ment FG IMP Jan. 31, 202056 400,000,000.00 400,000,000.00 8 Excise Payment FG IMP Feb. 4, 202057 440,905,610.00 9 Excise Pay ment FG IMP Feb. 7, 202058 803,175.00 825,000,000.00 10 Excise Payment FG CMA Feb. 7, 202059 1,650,000,000.00 825,000,000.00 11 Excise Payment FG IMP Feb. 12, 202060 500,000,000.00 410,000,000.00 12 Excise Payment FG IMP Feb. 13, 202061 307,500,000.00 1,217,500,000.00 13 Excise Payment FG CMA Feb. 14 , 202062 1,505,000,000.00 2,000,000,000.00 14 Excise Payment FG IMP Feb. 17, 202063 15 Excise Payment FG CMA Feb. 18, 202064 16 Excise Payment FG CMA Feb. 20, 202065 17 Excise Payment FG CMA Feb. 26, 202066 18 Excise Payment FG IMP Mar. 2, 202067 19 Excise Payment FG CMA Mar. 9, 202068 20 Excise Payment FG CMA Mar. 11, 202069 21 Excise Payment FG IMP Mar. 12, 202070 22 Excise Payment FG CMA Apr. 1, 202071 23 Excise Payment FG CMA Apr. 2, 202072 24 Excise Payment FG IMP Apr. 2, 202073 25 Excise Payment FG IMP Apr. 8, 202074 26 Excise Payment FG IMP May 11, 202075 27 Excise Payment FG IMP May 18, 202076 48 Exhibit �'P-24-17", USB (Exhibit �'P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-1 ", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 49 Exhibit "P-24-22", USB (Exhibit "P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-2", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 50 Exhibit �' P-24-31 ", USB (Exhibit �' P-44''); Exhibi t " P-4-3", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 51 Exhibit " P-24-36" , USB (Exhibit �' P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-4", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 52 Exhibit �'P-24-37'', USB (Exhibit �' P-44''): Exhibit "P-4-S'', USB (subm itted on July 12, 2024). SJ Exhibit "P-24-38", USB (Exhibit " P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-6", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). s� Exh ibit �'P-24-40'', USB (Exhibit �' P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-7", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 55 Exhibit "P-24-4 1��, USB (Exhibit �' P-44''); Exhibit �'P-4-8'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 56 Exhibit " P-24-43'", USB (Exhibit �' P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-9'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 57 Exhibit "P-24-45'', USB (Exhibit �'P-44''); Exhibit "P-4-10", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 58 Exhibit �'P-24-47", USB (Exhibit �'P-44''); Exhibit �'P-4-11 ", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 59 Exhibit "P-24-49" , USB (Exhibit " P-44''); Exhibit "P-4-1 2", USB (submitted on Ju ly 12, 2024). 60 Exhibit " P-24-52'', USB (Exhibit "P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-13" , USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 61 Exhibit " P-24-54", USB (Exhibit �'P-44" ); Exhibit " P-4-14" , USB (subm itted on Ju ly 12, 2024). 62 Exhibit " P-24-55", USB (Exhibit ''P-44''); Exhibit " P-4- 15", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 63 Exhibit " P-24-58", USB (Exhibit ''P-44''); Exhibit "P-4- 16", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 64 Exhibit " P-24-60", USB (Exhibit " P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-17", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 65 Exhibit �'P-24-62", USB (Exh ibit " P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-18", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 66 Exhibit " P-24-65'', USB (Exhibit " P-44" ); Ex hibi t " P-4- 19", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 67 Exhibit �'P-24-69", USB (Exhibit " P-44" ); Exh ibit "P-4-20", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 68 Exhibit " P-24-73 '', USB (Exhibit �'P-44''); Ex hibit �'P-4-2 1��, USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 69 Exhibit �'P-24-78", USB (Exhibit "P-44" ); Exhibit " P-4-22", USB (subm itted on July 12, 2024). 70 Exhibit �'P-24-79'', USB (Exhibit �'P-44''); Exhibit �' P-4-23", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 71 Exhibit " P-24-83", USB (Exhibit " P-44''); Exhibit �' P-4-24", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 72 Exhibit " P-24-84", USB (Exhibit " P-44 ''); Exhibit " P-4-25'�, USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 73 Exhibit " P-24-85", USB (Exhibit �'P-44''); Exhibit'' P-4-26'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 74 Exhibit " P-24-88", USB (Exhibit �'P-44" ); Exhibit �'P-4-27", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 75 Exhibit �'P-24-99", USB (Exhibit "P-44''); Exhi bit " P-4-28'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 76 Exhibit �'P-24- 109'', USB (Exhibit " P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-29" , USB (submitted on July 12, 2024).

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines) , Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Excise/ Payment/ Raw Import/ Date of Payment Amount TIF Removal Mat/ CMA 1, 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 FG 5 1,975,000.00 28 Excise Payment FG IMP May 22 , 202077 948,025,000.00 94,500,000.00 29 Excise Payment FG CMA May 29, 202078 3,405,500,000.00 30 Excise Payment FG IMP May 29, 202079 70 ,875 ,000.00 31 Excise Payment FG CMA J une 5, 202080 429,125,000.00 245,025,000.00 32 Excise Payment FG IMP Ju ne 8, 202081 754,975,000.00 1,000,000,000.00 33 Excise Payment FG CMA June 11, 202082 1,500,000,000.00 1,500,000,000.00 34 Excise Payment FG IMP June 11, 202083 481 ,600,000.00 5 18,400,000.00 35 Excise Payment FG CMA June 19, 202084 500,000,000.00 500,000,000.00 36 Excise Payment FG IMP June 19, 202085 3,39 1,150,000.00 608,850,000.00 37 Excise Payment FG IMP Jun e 25, 202086 2,500,000,000.00 500,000,000.00 38 Excise Payment FG IMP July 3, 202087 500,000,000.00 39 Excise Payment FG IMP ,July 8, 202088 71,550,000.00 304,425,000.00 40 Excise Payment FG IMP July 15, 202089 1,624,025,000.00 297,000,000.00 41 Excise Paymen t FG CMA July 15, 202090 1'703,000,000.00 200,4 75,000.00 42 Excise Payment FG IMP July 23, 202091 1,299,525,000.00 43 Excise Payment FG IMP July 29, 202092 44,550,000.00 44 Excise Payment FG IMP Aug. 7, 202093 45 Excise Payment FG CMA Aug. 10, 202094 46 Excise Payment FG IMP Aug. 12, 202095 47 Excise Payment FG IMP Aug. 20, 202096 48 Excise Payment FG IMP Aug. 25, 202097 49 Excise Payment FG CMA Sept. 4, 202098 50 Excise Payment FG IMP Sept. 4, 202099 51 Excise Payment FG IMP Sept. 4 , 2020100 52 Excise Payment FG CMA Sept. 9, 2020101 53 Excise Payment FG IMP Sept . 9, 2020102 54 Excise Payment FG IMP Sept. 18, 2020103 55 Excise Payment FG IMP Sept. 18, 2020 104 56 Excise Payment FG CMA Sept. 23, 202010s 77 Exhibit " P-24-11 6", USB (Exhibit "P-44"); Exhibit "P-4-30'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 78 Exhibit " P-24-1 17'', USB (Exhibit �'P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-3 1", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 79 Exhibit �'P-24-118", USB (Exhibit �'P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-32", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 80 Exhibit �'P-24- 126", US B (Exhibit �'P-44''); Exhibit �'P-4-33", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 81 Exhibit �'P-24-1 27", US B (Ex hibit �'P-44 ''); Exhibit �'P-4-34", USB (submincd on July 12, 2024). 82 Exhibit �'P-24-134", US B (Exhi bit "P-44"); Exhibit �'P-4-35", USB (submitted on Ju ly 12, 2024). 83 Exhibit �'P-24- 135", USB (Exhibit "P-44''); Exhibit �' P-4-36", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 84 Exhibit �'P-24- 15 1", USB (Exhibit "P-44"); Exh ibit �'P-4-37", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 85 Exhibit �' P-24- 152'', USB (Exh ibit "P-44''); Exhibit �'P-4-38", USB (subm itted on July 12, 2024). 86 Exhibit " P-24- 159", USB (Exh ibit �'P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-39", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 87 Exh ibit " P-24-1 69", USB (Exhi bit "P-44"); Exhi bit " P-4-40", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 88 Exh ibit " P-24-175", USB (Exhibit "P-44''); Exhibit "P-4-4 1",USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 89 Exhibit " P-24- 193", USB (Exhibit "P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-42", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 90 Exhibit " P-24-1 94", USB (Exhibit " P-44"); Exhibit " P-4-43'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 91 Exhibit " P-24-200", USB (Exhibit " P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-44'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 92 Exhibit " P-24-209", USB (Exh ibit " P-44"); Exh ibit " P-4-45", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 93 Exhibit " P-24-220", USB (Exh ibit "P-44" ); Exhibit " P-4-46", US B (submitted on July 12, 2024). 94 Exhibit " P-24-22 1", USB (Exh ibit "P-44"); Exhi bit " P-4-47", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 95 Exhibit " P-24-224", USB (Exhibit "P-44"); Exhibit "P-4-48", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 96 Exhibit "P-24-235", USB (Exhibit "P-44"); Exhibit "P-4-49", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 97 Exh ibit �'P-24-238", USB (Exhibit "P-44''); Exhibit "P-4-50'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 98 Exhibit "P-24-255", USB (Exhibit "P-44"); Exhibit "P-4-5 1��, USB (subm itted on July 12, 2024). 99 Exhibit "P-24-256", USB (Exhibit �' P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-52", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 100 Exhibit �'P-24-257", USB (Exhibit �'P-44''); Exh ibit �'P-4-53'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 101 Exhibit "P-24-260", USB (Exhibit �' P-44''); Exhibit " P-4-54'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 102 Exhibit �'P-24-26 1", USB (Exhibit �' P-44''); Exhibit "P-4-55'', USB (subm itted on July 12, 2024). 103 Exhibit �'P-24-267", USB (Exhibit �'P-44"); Exhibit �'P-4-56", USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 104 Exhibit "P-24-268'', US B (Exhibit �' P-44''); Exh ibit �'P-4-57'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024). 105 Exh ibit " P-24-276", USB (Exhi bit " P-44''); Exhibit �'P-4-58'', USB (submitted on July 12, 2024).

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT Internation a l (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenu e x--------------- --------------- ------ -- ---- --- ------ ------ ---------- ------------ ----------x Even assuming arguendo that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant case, petitioner's claim for refund must nevertheless fail for failure to establish that the excise taxes were erroneously or illegally paid or collected. Be that as it may, even assuming that this Court may validly take cognizance of the present Petition for Review, petitioner's claim for refund must still fail for lack of merit. Petitioner posits that the two-year period under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, may be r eckoned from a date subsequent to the payment of the tax. According to petitioner, although the excise taxes were initially paid validly, the payments may later become erroneous, thereby causing the two-year prescriptive period to commence from the occurrence of such subsequent event. Petitioner claims that while the flooding caused by Typhoon Ulysses may be considered a "supervening cause," jurisprudence recognizes circumstances where a supervening event may serve as the reckoning point for a claim for refund (i.e., November 12, 2020, the date when petitioner's warehouse were inundated by Typhoon Ulysses). In support of this position, petitioner cites Chevron Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Chevron) 110 and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue (Pilipinas Shel~. 11 1 According to petitioner, in these cases, petroleum products became exempt from excise taxes after the taxes had already been paid. 112 Thus, by analogy, petitioner argues that the government initially validly collected the excise taxes upon prepayment, up to the point when the products to which the excise tax stamps were affixed were stored in its Marikina warehouses, at which time it allegedly had no basis to claim a refund. 113 However, when its warehouses were inundated by Typhoon Ulysses on November 12, 2020, rendering the flooded goods unfit for sale, the excise tax payments effectively became erroneous. 114 110 G.R. No. 2 10836, September I, 20 IS [Per J. Dcrsamin, En Bane]. 111 G.R. No. 21 1303, June 15, 202 1 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe En Bane]. 112 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 984-985, petitioner's Memorandum, pars. 47- 50. 113 /d. at 985, par. 5 I. 114 /d. at 986, par. 52.

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT Interna tional (Philippin es), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x The Court finds petitioner's contentions untenable. The Court cannot rely on the Supreme Court's rulings in Chevron and Pilipinas Shell, for the simple reason that petitioner's claim is fundamentally different from those advanced in said cases. Unlike in Chevron and Pilipinas Shell, petitioner does not seek exemption from the payment of excise taxes on the ground that no law authorizes such exaction. In both Chevron and Pilipinas Shell, the claimants asserted that they are entitled to a refund or tax credit of excise taxes paid on the importation of, or on locally purchased, petroleum products which were subsequently sold to tax-exempt entities under Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. In contrast, petitioner anchors its claim on the belief that the imposition of excise tax under Section 129 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, requires the concurrence of the following: (1) that the goods are manufactured or produced in the Philippines; and (2) that these goods are for domestic sale, or consumption, or any other disposition. us For petitioner, the local sale component for the imposition of excise tax was not satisfied because the flooding in Marikina had prevented it from selling the finished goods stored in its warehouses and delivery vans.1 16 Accordingly, without the ability to sell the goods , the excise taxes should not be imposed, and if prepaid, as in this case, must be refunded. ll7 This fundamental distinction highlights the inapplicability of Chevron and Pilipin a s She ll to t h e present c ase. Consequently, petitioner cannot validly invoke these rulings as jurisprudential support for its claim for refund or tax credit. Moreover, the Court disagrees with petitioner 's position that there must be both " (1) manufacture, or production, [and] (2) domestic sale or consumption" for excise tax to be y coll e c t i ble . 11 8 115 !d. at 991 , par. 72. 116 /d. at 992, par. 76. 117 /d. at 992, par. 75. 118 /d. at 993, par. 77.

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines) , Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory v. Court ofAppeals (La Suerte Cigar) ,119 th e Supreme Cou rt explain ed th e n atur e of excise taxes in this wise: Nature of excise tax Excise tax is a tax on the production, sale, or con sumption of a specific commodity in a country. Section 110 of the 1986 Tax Code explicitly provides that the "excise taxes on domestic products shall be paid by the manufacturer or producer before [the] removal [of those products] from the place of production." "It does not matter to what use the article[s] subject to tax is put; the excise taxes are still due, even though the articles are removed merely for storage in some other place and are not actually sold or consumed." The excise tax based on weight, volume capacity or any other physical unit of measuremen t is referred to as "specific tax." If based on selling price or other specified value, it is referred to as "ad valorem" tax. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) While th e Su preme Court explained the nature of excise taxes under Section 110 of th e 1986 Tax Code, the same still holds tru e u n der th e presen t law. Notably, the requ irement th at "excise taxes on dom estic products s h all be paid by th e m anu facturer or producer b efore [th e] removal [of th ose product s] from the place of production ", is substantially carried over in Section 130 of th e NIRC of 1997, as amended. Likewise, th e distinction between th e "specific tax" and "ad valorem tax", was retain ed in Section 129 of the NIRC of 1997, as amen ded , to wit: SEC. 129. Goods and Services Subject to Excise Taxes.- Excise taxes apply to goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported as well as services performed in the Philippines. The excise tax imposed herein shall be in addition to the value-added tax imposed under Title IV. For purposes of this Title, excise taxes herein imposed and based on weight or volume capacity or any other physical unit of measurement shall be referred to as 'specific tax' and an excise tax herein imposed and based on selling price or other specified value of the good or service performed shall be referred to as 'ad valorem tax.' (Empha sis supplied) 119 G.R. Nos. 125346 eta/., Novem ber II , 201 4 [Per J. Leonen, En Bane).

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT In ternation al (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------ ---------- --- ------------ --- --- -- ----------------- -- -- -- ---x Applying the ruling in La Suerte Cigar case and Section 130, in relation to Section 129 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended , it is evident that excise taxes on domestic products must be paid by the manufacturer or producer before the removal of such products from the place of production, even though the subject articles are not actually sold or consumed. Lastly, Section 7 of RR No. 7-2014 explicitly states that: Upon receipt of the interna l revenue sta mps by th e sa id authorized representatives, the ownership a nd responsibility thereon sh all be t ransferred in favor of the importer or local manufacturer of cigaret tes. Any d a m a ge to or loss of internal revenue stamps a fter release thereof shall b e for t he a ccount of the importer or local m a nufacturer of ciga rettes . Thus, considering that the manufactured and imported cigarette products to which the internal revenue stamps had been affixed had long been in the possession of petitioner from the time they were removed from petitioner's place of production, the latter must necessarily bear the loss or damage resulting from the flood caused by Typhoon Ulysses. Moreover, it is significant to note that Section 204(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, authorizes respondent to "refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction." In this case, the subject internal revenue stamps had already been affixed to the cigarette products, as admitted by petitioner's witness , Mr. Yap.12o Hence, the circumstances contemplated under Section 204(C) do not obtain. In light of petitioner's failure to timely file its Petition for Review, thereby depriving this Court of jurisdiction over the case, the Court finds it unnecessary to further discuss the remaining issues raised by the parties. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and lack of v merit. 120 Docket- Vol. I, p. 42, Exhib it " P-1 2", Q&A No. 21.

DECISION CTA Case No. 11028 JT International (Philippines) , Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. JEAANc MA'DTWr ~RRr O-VILLENA tin~~i~ling Justice

Want an analysis of this document?

Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.