COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 1952 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9104) Petitioner, Present: Del Rosario, P.J. Castaneda, Jr., Uy, Ringpis-Liban, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, and Modesto-San Pedro, JJ -versus- PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM Promulgated: CORPORATION, Respondent. X---------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: For resolution of the Court En Bane is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 29 June 2020jl filed via registered mail on July 15, 2020. The CIR's Motion seeks reconsideration of the Court En Bane's Decision promulgated on June 29, 20202 (the "Assailed Decision") denying his Petition for Review for lack of merit. ~ 1 Court En Bane's Docket, pp. 123-1 28. 2 /d., pp. 100- 11 6.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1952 (CTA Case No. 9104) Page 2 of3 Petitioner moves for reconsideration of the Assailed Decision based on the ground that:3 "THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF P56,762,554.12 REPRESENTING EXCISE TAXES IT PAID ON JET A-1 FUEL SOLD TO TAX- EXEMPT INTERNATIONAL AIR CARRIERS FOR THE PERIOD 12AUGUSTT031 DECEMBER2013." In its Comment/Opposition [To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated July 15, 2020f filed on September 18, 2020, respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation maintains that excise tax on petroleum products is essentially a tax on property, hence, the exemption expressly granted under Section 135 of the NIRC attaches to the petroleum products. The Court En Bane resolves to deny the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. At the outset, it bears noting that petitioner's arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration are mere restatements of the arguments he raised in his previous pleadings. Needless to say, these matters had already been thoroughly discussed and resolved by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision. To put it bluntly, there is nothing in his Motion for Reconsideration that was not sufficiently passed upon by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision. Petitioner utterly failed to raise any new or substantial matter let alone any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of the Court En Bane's findings. The Court En Bane stands by its ruling that respondent is entitled to the refund of duly substantiated excise taxes paid on petroleum products sold to international carriers from August 12, 2013 to December 31, 2013. As plainly adverted to in the Assailed Decision, such ruling finds jurisprudential mooring in the Supreme Court cases of Chevron Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue5 and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.6 In sum, the Court En Bane finds no plausible reason to deviate from its ruling in the Assailed Decision. J-c-' 3 /d.� pp. 123�124. 4 /d.� pp. 134�143. ' G.R. No. 210836. September I, 2015. 6 G.R. No. 180402, February 10,2016.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1952 (CTA Case No. 9104) Page 3 of3 WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 29 June 2020) is DENIED for utter lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~;4>C.~-4 Q JUKNITO C. CASTANEDK,�.. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ER~P.UY Associate Justice ON LEAVE MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~�7- /}'tr.�-. �""- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice I' JEAN MAR~I~Ee'~J~usOt-icVeILLENA