PHILIPINAS SHELL, PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (consolidated with CTA Case No. 6559)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION Petitioner, -versus- C.T.A. CASE N O S. 6506 & 6559 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL MEMBERS: REVENUE, ACOSTA, E., Chairman Respondent. BAUTISTA, L., CASANOVA, C., JJ Promulgated: FEB 09 2005 t!lotfr6~ x------------------------------------------ -----------------x D ECISIO N BAUTISTA, J.: Before the Court are consolidated cases involving claims for refund or issuance of tax credit certificates in the aggregate amount of P175,901,950.20 allegedly representing specific taxes paid on purchases by Petitioner of heavy fuel oil/feedstock subsequently, sold to the National Power Corporation covering the following period: CTA Case No. Period Covered Amount 6506 July 2000 to June 2001 Php 95 ,943 ,863 .70 6559 July 2001 to December 2001 TOTAL 79,958 ,086 .50 Php 175.901 950 20

DE C ISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 The facts as culled from the records are as follows: Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Philippine laws, with address at the Shell House, 156 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City. (par. 1, Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, CTA Case Nos. 6506 & 6559) It is engaged in the business of processing and refining crude oil into various petroleum products. Part of its operations consist of the extraction of lubricating oil base stock, wax and bitumen from heavy fuel oil/ feedstock. This process is undertaken at Petitioner's Pililla Baseoil Refinery (Baseoil Refinery, for brevity). After the extraction process, the residual fuel oil which allegedly comprises approximately sixty (60 %) percent of the heavy fuel oil/ feedstock received from its Tabangao Refinery, is sold to NPC, which is then used at the NPC Power Plant to generate electricity. Upon withdrawal of the feedstock from petitioner's Tabangao Refinery, ~xcise taxes due thereon are being paid pursuant to Section 148 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), to wit: "Sec. 148. Manufactured Oils and Other Fuels. -There shall be collected on refined and manufactured mineral oils and motor fuels, the following excise taxes which shall attach to the goods hereunder enumerated as soon as they are in existence as such: XXX XXX XXX

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 (1) Bunker fuel oil, and on similar fuel oils having more or less the same generating power, per liter of volume capacity. Thirty centavos (P0.30)" The P0.30 excise tax per liter which was previously paid by petitioner pursuant to Section 148 (1) of the NIRC was ~sed on to NPC as part of the selling price of the volumes of fuel oil purchased from the former. However, NPC refused to pay the same, invoking its exemption under its Charter, R.A. No. 6935. '�~ Petitioner invoked this Court's Decision in CTA Case No. 5882 entitled "Shell Philippine Petroleum Corporation (Now Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, promulgated on July 26, 2000, where the Court granted petitioner's claim for refund of the excise taxes paid pertaining to the residual fuel oil sold to NPC. On the basis of the foregoing decision, respondent issued the corresponding tax credit certificates to herein petitioner, as the successor of Shell Philippine Petroleum Corporation. However, respondent ceased to issue the tax credit certificates corresponding to petitioner's claims starting the year 2000. As such, petitioner's claims for refund covering the period J!!ly_ 2000 to December ~001 remain pending. During the period July 2000 to June 2001, petitioner transferred the following volumes of fuel oil/feedstock from the Tabangao Refinery to the

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 Baseoil Refinery, and paid the corresponding specific taxes thereon, summary is shown below: CTA CASE NO . 6506 Period Covered Volume in liters Specific Tax at P0 .30/Iiter July to September, 2000 169,338 ,339 Php 50,801 ,501 .70 October to December, 2000 218 ,076 ,409 65,422 ,922 .70 January to March , 2001 154,652 ,696 46,395,808 .80 107,983 .829 32 ,395,148.70 April to June, 2001 650,051 ,273 Php 195.01538190 TOTAL CTA Case No . 6559 Period Covered Volume in liters Specific Tax at P0 .30/Iiter July to September 2001 229 ,578 ,009 Php 68 ,873,402 .70 October to December 2001 142,1 64.310 42 ,649 ,293.00 TOTAL 371 742 319 Php 111 522 695 70 On the other hand, the total volume of residual fuel oil sold and delivered by petitioner to NPC are summarized as follows: CTA Case No. 6506 Period Covered Volume in liters Specific Tax at P0.30/Iiter July to September, 2000 71 ,695,298 Php 21 ,508 ,589.40 October to December, 2000 30 ,894 ,540 .00 January to March , 2001 102,981 ,800 20,268,031 .20 67 ,560 ,104 23.272 .703 .10 April to June, 2001 77,575,677 Php 95 943 863 70 TOTAL 319 ,812 ,879 CTA CASE NO. 6559 Period Covered Volume in liters Specific Tax at P0 .30/Iiter July to September 2001 140,958 ,334 Php 42 ,287,500.20 October to December 2001 125,568 ,621 37 .670 ,586 .30 TOTAL 266 ,526,955 Php 79 958 086 50

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 The following claims for refund, were thus, filed by petitioner with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR): CTA Case No . 6506 Exhibit Date Filed wL BIR Amount of Claim Php 21,508,589.40 JJJ December 12,2001 JJJ-1 December 12, 2001 30,894,540.00 JJJ-2 February 26, 2002 20,268,031.20 JJJ-3 February 26, 2002 23,272,703.10 Total Pho 95 943 863.70 CTA Case No. 6559 Exhibit Date Filed wL BIR Amount of Claim EE Php 42,287,500.20 EE-1 February 26, 2002 February 26, 2002 37,670,586.30 Total Pho 79 058 086.50 For failure on the part of respondent to act on the administrative claims for refund, petitioner filed the judicial claims for refund with this Court on July 9, 2002 for claims covering the period July 2000 to June 2001 and docketed as CTA Case No. 6506 and on October 30, 2002 for claims covering the period July 2001 to December 2001 and docketed as CTA Case No. 6559. Respondent advanced the same Special and Affirmative Defenses in his separate Answers to the two Petitions for Review: 1. The petition states no cause of action as it does not allege the dates when the taxes sought to be refunded were actually paid; 2. Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant, the same being in the nature of exemption from taxes (Commissioner

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 of Internal Revenue vs. Ledesma, 31 SCRA 95; Manila Electric Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 67 SCRA 35) 3. One who claims to be exempt from payment of a particular tax must do so under clear and unmistakable terms found in the statute (Asiatic Petroleum vs. Llanes, 49 Phil. 466; Union Garment Co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 4 SCRA 304); 4. In an action for tax refund, the burden is upon the taxpayer to prove that he is entitled thereto, and failure to sustain the same is fatal to the action for tax refund; 5. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show compliance with the provisions of Section 112 and Section 229, both of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended; 6. Taxes paid and collected are presumed to have been made in accordance with the law and regulations, hence not refundable. The following issues have been stipulated by the parties in both cases: 1. Whether or not the Decision of this Honorable Court in CTA Case No. 5882 entitled "Shell Philippine Petroleum Corporation (now Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" is applicable to the claims for refund subject matter of petitions for review in both cases. CTA Case No. 6506 I tJII' 2. Whether� or not during the period of July 2000 to June 2001, Petitioner transferred from its Tabangao Refinery to its Baseoil Refinery in Pililla, Rizal, a total of 650,051,273 liters of fuel

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 oil, and paid specific tax thereon at P0.30 per liter, or a total of P195,051,381.90. 3. Whether or not out of said fuel oil transferred to, and subsequently processed at, Petitioner's Baseoil Refinery, 319,812,879 liters of residual fuel oil were sold and delivered by the Petitioner to NPC, on which specific tax of P95,943,863.70 had been paid. CTA Case No. 6559 2. Whether or not during the period July 2001 to December 2001, Petitioner transferred from its Tabangao Refinery to its Baseoil Refinery in Pililla, Rizal, certain volumes of fuel oil, and paid specific tax thereon at P0.30 per liter. 3. Whether or not out of said fuel oil transferred to, and subsequently processed at, Petitioner's Baseoil Refinery, 266,526,955 liters of residual fuel oil were sold and delivered by the Petitioner to NPC, on which specific taxes of P79,958,086.50 had been paid. Before the parties rested their case, petitioner filed a "Motion for Consolidation of Cases" of CTA Case Nos. 6506 and 6559. Considering that the two cases involve the same parties, and the same cause of action, and that there was no objection on the part of the respondent, petitioner's motion for

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 consolidation of cases was granted by the Court on May 9, 2003 (Resolution, CTA Case Nos. 6506 and 6559, May 14, 2003). After a careful evaluation of the evidence adduced by petitioner as well as the applicable laws, rules and jurisprudence, this Court finds in favor of the petitioner. On the first stipulated issue, we rule in the affirmative. In CTA Case No. 5882, this Court held: "Finally, considering that Petitioner's sale of fuel oil to NPC is exempt from the payment of excise taxes, then petitioner may rightfully recover the excise taxes it paid to PSPC. And as correctly pointed out by Petitioner, since it ended up shouldering the specific tax component of the fuel oil, it is but just and reasonable to allow it to recover what it would have otherwise have passed on to NPC had it not been for NPC's exemption from indirect taxes. "the view which refuses to accord the exemption because the tax is first paid by the seller disregards realities and gives more importance to form than to substance. Equity and law always exalt substance over form." (Opinion No. 106, 5'54, cited in Maceda vs Macaraig, Jr., 223 SCRA 217) Likewise, it is worth mentioning that the case -6� Maceda vs. Macaraig, 223 SCRA 217 is just a reiteration of an earlier ruling of the Supreme court in the case of CIR vs. Gotamco 148 SCRA 36 where it was held that the contractor of the World Health Organization (WHO) is not liable to contractor's tax which the BIR assessed considering that it cannot pass on the said tax to the WHO because the latter is exempted from all taxes, direct or indirect, by virtue of the Host Agreement with the Philippine Government. In view of the settled jurisprudence on the matter, we find legal basis and merit to the arguments raised by the Petitioner.

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 WHEREFORE, prem ises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the Respondent to REFUND or in the alternative, ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of the Petitioner the amount of P109,497,108.19 representing specific taxes paid by Petitioner on its purchases of heavy fuel oil from May to December of 1997. SO ORDERED." Well-settled is the rule that NPC is exempt from direct and indirect taxes pursuant to its Charter, Republic Act No. 6395, as amended by P.D. 380. And that there is no indication that its tax exemption privileges have been withdrawn. Hence, the Decision in CTA Case No. 5882 is definitely applicable to the consolidated cases at bar. ~e subject matter of the claim for refund in CTA Case No. 5882 and in I the consolidated cases at bar are similar. Both claims for refund in the prior case and in these consolidated cases were brought about by petitioner's sale of residual fuel oil to NPC, for which specific taxes have been paid. However, by virtue of NPC's exemption from direct and indirect taxes, petitioner cannot pass on to NPC the specific taxes paid on the fuel oil sold to the latter. -i Thus, as held by this Court in CTA Case No. 5882, "it but just and / reasonable to allow it to recover what it would have otherwise have passed on to NPC had it not been for NPC's exemption from indirect taxes." Moreover, Respondent has, in fac t, complied with the aforesaid Decision, and issued tax credit certificates in relation to petitioner's claims for refund for

DE C ISION CTA CASE NOS . 6506 & 6559 Page IO of 17 the period prior to July 2000. Such that, his act of discontinuing the issuance of tax credit certificates to petitioner in relation to the excise taxes paid on fuel oil sold and delivered to NPC for the period July 2000 to December 2001 has no basis. We shall now proceed to discuss the factual issues of these consolidated cases. To prove the transfer of fuel oil from Tabangao Refinery to Baseoil Refinery, petitioner presented in evidence the Daily Product Delivery Report (DPDR) which shows the daily deliveries made for each petroleum product in terms of total volume, specific tax due and the covering Withdrawal Certificate Number, the computation of the excise tax due is reflected in the Daily Removals and Excise Tax Due to Petroleum Products (DRETDPP). The Specific tax due on petroleum products removed from its place of production has been remitted to the BIR as shown in the Excise Tax Returns. On the other hand, the sale of residual fuel oil to NPC is evidenced by Invoices and Official Receipts issued by petitioner. The volumes of fuel oil transferred from the Tabangao Refinery to the Baseoil Refinery and the corresponding excise tax payments are shown below (Exhs. B, C, D, E,F, G, H, I, ], K, L, M, N, 0 , P, Q, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DO, EE, FF, GG, JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, 00, PP, QQ, RR, 55, TT, WW, XX, YY, ZZ, AAA, BBB, CCC, DOD, EEE, FFF, and GGG inclusive of submarkings, CTA Case No .

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 6506 and Exhs. C, D,E F,G, H, I, ], K, L, M , N, 0 , P, Q, R, 5, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA and BB, inclusive ofsubmarkings, CTA Case No. 6559) : CTA Case No. 6506 Deliver~ Date Withdrawal Certi- Quantit~ (in liters} Excise Tax Paid ficate No. P0 .30/Iiter 9-Jul -00 49553 2,502 ,696 750 ,808 .80 13-Jul-00 49572 4,251 ,009 1,275 ,302.70 16-Jul-00 49584 4,163,664 1,249,099 .20 21-Jul-00 49706 2,322 ,870 696,861 .00 24-Jul-00 49710 4,990 ,738 1,497,221.40 29-Jul-00 49730 6,946 ,933 2,084 ,079.90 3-Aug-00 49743 8,338 ,185 2,501,455 .50 4-Aug-00 49749 9,229 ,918 2,768,975.40 8-Aug-00 49817 15 ,318 ,838 4,595 ,651.40 15-Aug-00 49845 151 ,152.30 16-Aug-00 49848 503 ,841 5,874,040 .20 26-Aug-00 49689 19 ,580 ,134 6,046,632.00 5-Sep-00 49977 20 ,155,440 7,287 ,633.90 21 -Sep-00 50031 24 ,292 ,113 8,060 ,118.30 29-Sep-00 50115 26,867 ,061 5,962,469 .70 29-Sep-00 50115 19,874 ,899 5,962,469 .70 3-0ct-00 50135 19,874 ,899 5,111 ,953.80 11-0ct-00 50167 17,039 ,846 6,044 ,671 .80 18-0ct-00 50252 20 ,148 ,906 6,032 ,22 1.50 26-0ct-00 50288 20 ,107,405 6,528 ,822 .60 5-Nov-00 50367 21 ,762 ,747 5,126 ,039 .10 15-Nov-00 50456 17,086 ,797 1,414,505.40 26-Nov-00 50495 4,715 ,018 5,834 ,804 .10 2-Dec-00 50569 19,449,347 5,825 ,054.70 11-Dec-00 50658 19,416,849 4 ,844 ,969 .70 20 - Dec-00 50690 16,149,899 6,056 ,339.40 22-Dec-00 50753 20,1 87 ,798 666 ,996 .30 26-Dec-00 50767 2,223 ,321 5,974,074 .60 26-Dec-00 50767 19,913 ,582 5,974 ,074 .60 3-Feb-01 52279 19,913 ,582 6 ,143 ,7 30.30 5-Feb-01 52290 20,479 ,101 2 ,360 ,712.90 9-Feb-01 60312 7 ,869 ,043 3,876,592 .50 16-Feb-01 60338 12,921,975 3,087 ,155.70 21-Feb-01 60408 10,290 ,519 3,166,709.10 26-Feb-01 60433 10,555 ,697 3,390 ,380.10 1-Mar-01 60447 11 ,301 ,267 3,120,803.10 12-Mar-01 60604 10,402 ,677 8,000,412 .30 26,668 ,041

DEC ISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 19-Mar-01 60636 24 ,250,794 7,275,238 .20 26-Mar-01 60668 6 ,519 ,194 1,955 ,758.20 60753 8,190,614 2 ,457 ,184 .20 2-Apr-01 60754 2 ,239 ,251 2-Apr-01 60776 4,332 ,597 671 ,775 .30 6-Apr-01 60788 5,831,425 1,299 ,779 .10 9-Apr-01 60903 1,749,427 .50 22-Apr-01 60935 24 ,145 ,852 7,243 ,755 .60 29-Apr-01 61304 18 ,916 ,996 5,675 ,098.80 10-May-01 61100 16,113,192 4 ,833 ,95 7 .60 24 - May-01 61178 11 ,319,149 3,395 ,744.70 31 -May-01 10 ,375 ,559 3,112,667 .70 650 ,051 ,278 195,015,381 .90 Total CTA Case No . 6559 Delivery Date Withdrawal Certi- Quantity (in liters) Excise Tax Paid ficate No. P0 .30/Iiter 20-Jun-01 61332 19,785 ,896 5,935 ,768.80 1-Jul-01 61441 3,783 ,954 1,135,186.20 9-Jul-01 61486 8,231 ,915.40 61526 27,439 ,718 6,235 ,848.60 17-Jul-01 61602 20,786 ,162 7,234 ,153.80 22 -Jul-01 61638 24 ,113 ,846 6,708 ,936 .00 28-Jul-01 61777 22 ,363 ,120 8,718 ,169.20 11-Aug-01 61820 29 ,060,564 7,266,686 .10 19-Aug-01 61947 24 ,222 ,287 6 ,046,463 .70 31 -Aug-01 62062 20 ,154,879 8,695,342 .80 11 -Sep-01 62094 28 ,984,476 2,664,932 .10 16-Sep-01 62146 7,022 ,112.90 24-Sep-01 62250 8,883 ,107 4,013 ,329 .80 2-0ct-01 62252 23,407 ,043 1,409 ,800 .80 2-0ct-01 62251 13,377 ,766 669 ,915 .90 2-0ct-01 30252 3,144,047 .70 17-0ct-01 30273 4,699 ,336 3,150,051 .00 20-0ct-01 62610 2,233 ,053 4,829 ,508 .60 26-0ct-01 62642 10,480 ,159 2,690 ,808.00 1-Nov-01 62403 10,500 ,170 1,486 ,967 .70 2-Nov-01 62643 16,098 ,362 669 ,264 .90 4-Nov-01 62520 8,969 ,360 8,238 ,364.50 13-Nov-01 62574 4,956 ,559 5,325,121 .20 21-Nov-01 2,230 ,883 111 ,522 ,695 .70 Total 27 ,461 ,215 17,750,404 371 ,742 ,319 The volumes of residual fuel oil sold and delivered by petitioner to NPC are likewise duly substantiated as evidenced by the Invoices and Official

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 Receipts issued by petitioner in favor of NPC (Exhs. R, HH, UU and HHH inclusive of submarkings, CTA Case No . 6506 and Exhs. N and CC, inclusive of submarkings, CTA Case No. 6559), details are shown below: CTA 6506 Date Volume (in liters) S[;1ecific Tax Amount 31-Jul-00 2,376 ,218 712 ,865.40 29 -Aug-00 29-Aug-00 3,770 ,054 1,131 ,016 .20 29-Aug-00 29 -Aug-00 5,005 ,416 1,501 ,624.80 30-Aug-00 30-Aug-00 4,805 ,718 1,441 ,715.40 30-Aug-00 31-Aug-00 4,465 ,368 1,339 ,610.40 20-Sep-00 20-Sep-00 4,781 ,998 1,434 ,599.40 20-Sep-00 25-Sep-00 5,449 ,864 1,634 ,959 .20 25-Sep-00 30-Sep-00 4,823 ,578 1,447 ,073.40 30-Sep-00 16-0ct-00 5,412 ,469 1,623 ,740.70 16-0ct-00 20-0ct-00 4,709,385 1,412 ,815.50 20-0ct-00 20-0ct-00 4,897 ,347 1,469 ,204.10 30-0ct-00 31-0ct-00 1,749 ,365 524 ,809 .50 31-0ct-00 31-0ct-00 5,022 ,597 1,366 ,423 .50 24-Nov-00 24-Nov-00 4 ,554 ,745 1,506,779 .10 28-Nov-00 29-Nov-00 5,054 ,967 1,516,490 .10 29-Nov-00 20-Dec-00 4,816 ,209 1,444 ,862 .70 20-Dec-00 27-Dec-00 5,167,721 1,550,316 .30 29-Dec-00 27-Dec-00 3,950 ,031 1' 185,009 .30 4,898 ,834 1,469 ,650.20 5,666 ,545 1,699 ,963.50 4 ,768 ,302 1,430 ,490 .60 5,440 ,819 1,632 ,245 .70 5,289 ,734 1,586,920 .20 1,946 ,390 583 ,917.00 2,527 ,788 758,336.40 4,313 ,408 1,294 ,022.40 4,937 ,582 1,481 ,274 .60 5,055 ,654 1,516,696 .20 5,396 ,802 1,619 ,040.60 5,069 ,325 1,520 ,7 97 .50 5,579 ,336 1,673 ,800.80 5,014 ,128 1,504 ,238.40 4,895 ,727 1,468 ,718 . 10 5,526,820 1,658 ,046.00 4,525 ,906 1,357 ,771 .80

DEC I S ION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 28-Dec-00 2,101 ,043 630,312 .90 28-Dec-00 3,616 ,116 1,084 ,834 .80 29-Jan-01 2 , 120 ,331 636 ,099.30 29-Jan -01 5,173,458 1,552 ,037.40 31-Jan-01 4,668 ,965 1,468 ,159.50 31-Jan -01 4,771 ,763 1,479 ,635 .10 23-Feb-01 5, 110 ,281 1,571 ,443.80 23 - Feb-01 5,292 ,352 1,653 ,393.90 26-Feb-01 3,612 ,804 1' 130 ,370 .00 26-Feb-01 1,538 ,366 476 ,130.30 27-Feb-01 4,650 ,271 1,453 ,066 .50 28-Mar-01 5,203,469 1'641 '647.10 28 - Mar-01 4,742 ,532 1,487 ,355 .90 t� 28 - Mar-01 4 ,756,479 1,504 ,811 .10 28-Mar-01 4,915 ,193 1,518,441 .00 28-Mar-01 5,412 ,311 1,710 ,574.50 28-Mar-01 4,907 ,846 1,533 ,581 .70 30-Mar-01 5 ,233 ,155 1,639,420 .80 30-Apr-01 4,001 ,354 1,262 ,364 .90 30-Apr-01 5 ,283 ,857 1,657,392 .90 30-Apr-01 4 ,936 ,169 1,543 ,365.30 30-Apr-01 4,747 ,222 1,484,723.40 30-May-01 4,735 ,904 1,466 , 195.40 30 -May-01 5,429 ,765 1,703,301 .90 30-May-01 4,813 ,691 1,499 , 164 .20 ~ 30-May-01 5,519 ,910 1,724 ,867 .70 25 -Jun-01 5,262 ,592 1,649 ,290 .80 25-Jun-01 4,867 ,196 1,520 ,172 .00 25 -Jun-01 5,276 ,373 1,658 ,968.20 25-Jun-01 5,048 ,380 1,572 ,389.10 25-Jun-01 5,044 ,188 1,569 ,455.70 27-Jun-01 4,831 ,790 1,518 ,902 .70 27-Jun-01 4 ,549,457 1,442 ,148 .90 313 ,840,733 95 ,943 ,863 .70 CTA 6559 !1 Date Volume (in liters) Specific Tax Amount 16-Jul-01 5,732 ,201 1,719,660 .30 27-Jul - 01 5,394 ,695 1,618,408 .50 27-Jul - 01 5,852 ,281 1,755,684 .30 27-Jul - 01 5,247 ,932 1,574 ,379 .60 27-Jul-01 5,017 ,566 1,505 ,269.80 27-Jul - 01 4,911 ,542 1,473,462.60

DEC ISI ON CTA CASE NOS. 65 06 & 6559 27-Jul - 01 5,101 ,938 1,530 ,581.40 'I! 27-Jul-01 5,414 ,740 1,624,422 .00 27-Aug -01 5,633 ,944 1,690 ,183.20 27-Aug-01 5,470 ,726 1,641 ,217.80 27-Aug-01 5,816 ,523 1,744 ,956 .90 27-Aug -01 4,969 ,388 1,490 ,816.40 28-Aug -01 4 , 197 ,519 1,259 ,255.70 28-Aug - 01 4,849 ,365 1,454 ,809 .50 28-Aug-01 5,234 ,882 1,570 ,464 .60 28-Aug-01 5,173,470 1,552 ,041 .00 28-Aug -01 5,338 ,719 1,601 ,615.70 28-Aug-01 5,031,470 1,509 ,441 .00 28-Aug-01 5,609 ,636 1,682 ,890.80 ., 28-Sep-01 4,780 ,562 1,434 ,168 .60 28 - Sep -01 5,460,497 1,638 ,149.10 28 - Sep -01 5,275 ,603 1,582 ,680.90 28 - Sep-01 5,332 ,129 1,599 ,638 .70 28-Sep-01 4 ,639 ,755 1,391 ,926 .50 28-Sep-01 5 ,047 ,761 1,514,328 .30 28-Sep-01 4 ,858 ,791 1,457,637 .30 28-Sep-01 5 ,564 ,699 1,669,409 .70 27-0ct-01 5 ,693 ,564 1,708,069 .20 27 -0 c t- 01 4 ,974 ,374 1,492 ,312 .20 27-0ct-01 5,331 ' 184 1,599 ,355 .20 27-0ct-01 3,486 ,295 1,045,888 .50 27 -0 c t- 01 5,317 ,167 1,595 ,150.10 30-0ct-01 5,745 ,099 1,723 ,529 .70 30-0ct-01 5,568 ,255 1,670,476 .50 26 - Nov- 01 5,690 ,932 1,707 ,27 9.60 26-Nov-01 5,292 ,126 1,587 ,637 .80 26 - Nov - 01 5,097 ,210 1,529 ,163.00 26-Nov-01 4 , 123 ,068 1,236 ,920.40 26-Nov-01 5,513 ,676 1,654 ,102.80 26 - Nov - 01 5,358 ,796 1,607 ,638 .80 26-Nov-01 4,907 ,730 1,472,319 .00 26 - Nov-01 5,342 ,116 1,602 ,634.80 26-Nov-01 5,579 ,970 1,673 ,991 .00 27-Nov-01 5 ,105 ,041 1,531 ,512 .30 28 - Dec-01 5,241 ,856 1,572 ,556 .80 28 - Dec -01 5,555 ,186 1,666 ,555 .80 28-Dec-01 4 ,847 ,778 1,454,333.40 28 - Dec -01 5,426 ,102 1,627 ,830 .60 28 - Dec- 01 5,695 ,125 1'708 ,537 .50 28-Dec-01 4 ,998 ,848 1,499,654.40 28-Dec-01 5 ,677 ,123 1,703 ,136.90 TOTAL 266 ,526,955 79 ,958 ,086 .50

... DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 WHEREFORE, p etitioner's claims for refun d in CTA Case Nos. 6506 and 6559 are hereby GRANTED . Respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND or in the alternative ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor petitioner the amount of P175,901,950.20 representing excise taxes paid for the period July 2000 to December 2001. SO ORDERED. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: G____.~ . Q~ ERNESTO D . ACOSTA Presiding Justice CAESA~ANOVA Associate Justice

DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 6506 & 6559 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above decision was reached after due consultation with the members of the First Division of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. Q,_-LA� Q~ ERNESTO D . ACOSTA Chairman, First Division