CTA Case No. 4709 (Decision)

RF~PURLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING C.T.A. CASE NO. 4709 AND REFINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - THE HONORARLE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - DECISION This is a suit brought by the petitioner for the refund of an aggregate amount of P57,211.,166.78 representing the ad valorem and specific taxes alleged to have been paid on the petroleum products it purchased from Petrophil Philippines and Caltex Philippines Inc. covering the period November 1985 to December 31, 1990. Petitioner, Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR), is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of sme]ting and refining copper concentrates for the production and export of copper cathodes and related by-products. It is registered with the Export Processing Zone Authority (EP7.A) as shown by 271

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 2- Certificate of Registration No. 82-40 (see Exhibit "A") and is a registered export producer with the Board of Investment under C.R. No. 80-1120 (Exhibit "A-1"). The nature of the business of the petitioner requires the regular use of fue] supplies, such as diesel fuel oil, bunker oi 1, luhricant' and other petroleum products, which it purchases from the oil companies namely: Petrophil Corporation and Caltex Philippines Inc. The specific and ad valorem taxes imposed by law on these petroleum products were paid by these oil companies and were subsequently passed on to petitioner. Based on its belief that it is exempt from paying taxes on these products, petitioner made several applications for tax credit on the fuel delivered to it by these oil companies as evidenced by Exhibits "Q-1" to "Q-12", detailing therein the dates covered and the amount applied for as tax credit. In response, the B1R issued letters acknowledging receipt of the applications but denied all of petitioner's claims focusing primarily on its own interpretation of Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 66 and related laws. It is the opinion of the then Commissioner of the BIR, Jose U. Ong, that the aforecited Section of PD 66 "does not clearly state that the petroleum products sold and delivered to EPZA- 272

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 3- registered enterprises are exempt from taxes". Moreover, he asserts that the petroleum products purchased by the petitioner do not form part of the export products manufactured, thus it falls outside the ambit of Section 18(i) of the same Presidential Decree. From this denial, petitionei elevated its case to this Court on February 3,1992. In its Answer, respondent adopts the same line of defense as contained in the letters of denial earlier issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Quoted hereunder are the Special and Affirmative Defenses of Respondent: 5. Section 17 of P.O. No. 66 does not clearly state that petroleum products sold and delivered to EPZA registered enterprises are exempt from taxes; 6. Under paragraph (i), Section 18 of P.D. No. 66, as amended by P.O. No. 1449, tax credit to be given to a registered zone enterprise shall cover the sales, compensating specific taxes � and duties on supp 1 ies, raw materials and semi-manufactured products used in the manufacture or processing or production of its export products and forming part thereof; 7. In the case at bar, the ad valorem and specific taxes sought to be refunded/credited were paid on petroleum products which do not form part of the export products manufactured by petitioner; 8. In an action for refund and/or tax credit, the taxpayer has the burden of showing that the taxes paid were erroneously collected 273

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 4- and failure to sustain this burden is fatal to the action for refund and/or tax credit; 9. Claims for refund are construed strictly against claimants since they are in the nature of an exemption from taxation. It cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language (Manila Electric Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 67 SCRA 351); 10. The right of the petitioner to file a judicial action for the refund and/or credit of the ad valorem and specific taxes paid before February 3, 1990 has already prescribed; 11. The instant petition states no cause of action as it does not allege the date when the tax sought to be refunded was paid (Manufacturer's Bank and Trust Company vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C.T.A. Case No. 1657, November 19, 1985); Respondent did not controvert the amounts prayed for in the petition but takes exception lo the legal basis of the claim for refund. Petitioner anchors its claim on the tax incentive provided for by Section 17 of P.O. No. 66 creating the Export Processing Zone Authority which states, thus: Sec. 17. Tax Treatment of Herchandise in the Zone. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Decree, foreign and domestic merchandise, raw materials, supplies, articles, equipment, machineries, spare parts and wares of every description, except those prohibited by law, brought into the zone, to be sold, stored, broken up, repacked, assembled, installed, sorted, cleaned, graded or otherwise processed, manipulated, manufactured, mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise or used, whether dire~tly or indirectly in such activity, shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations nor to 274

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 5- local tax ordinances, the provisions of the law to the contrary notwithstanding. Respondent disputes the claim of ,the petitioner and maintains that the aforementioned Section does not clearly and expressly exempt petroleum products from taxes. To further bolster its claim, respondent in her memorandum quotes Section 18(i) of P.D. No. 66, as amended by P.D. No. 1449, requiring that the raw materials upon which specific and ad valorem taxes are imposed must be used in the manufacture of the exported products and form part thereof to fall within the exemption. She asserts that this does not hold true in the present case. Quoted hereunder is the aforementioned section: Section 18(i) Tax Credi~ Every registered zone enterprise shall enjoy a tax credit equivalent to the sales, compensating and specific taxes and duties on supplies, raw materials and semi-manufactured products used in the manufacture, processing or production of its export products and forming part thereof: Provided, that the tax credit shall accrue to ~he registered zone enterprise only after the final product has in fact been exported. The tax c~edit shall be used by the Secretary of Finance upon presentation of the export documents, and shall be in lieu of refunds. It may be used to pay taxes, duties, charges and fees due to the national government in connection with its operations. A tax credit shall be non-transferable, except when such transfer is by hereditary succession or occurs by operation of law, it may be used by the person or entity to whom it is issued only so 275

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 6- long as it enjoys the benefits and incentives provided for in this Decree; and may not be used so as to result in a refund. Respondent, also in her memorandum questions the propriety of the petitioner to ask for a refund because the entities or persons directly liable for the payment of the specific and ad valorem taxes are Petrophil anQ Caltex Philippines, thus the right to claim for a refund properly belongs to them and not to petitioner. The issue presented to this Court for determination is whether or not petroleum products purchased and used by an EPZA-registered enterprise are exempt from ad valorem and specific taxes. This particular issue is not of first impression. In the case entitled "Philippin~ Phosphate Fertilizer Coiporation vs. The Honorable Cbmmlssioner of Customs. CTA Case No. 4661, , dated May 31, 1993, this Court was called upon to interpret Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 66 as it relates to the question of whether /' the petroleum products fall within the exemptions provided by law. This same case gave a comprehensive interpretation of the pertinent provisions of P.D. 66 by tracing its background and objectives as well as its relation to other laws giving us ample authority to rule on the issue presently before Us. 276

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 7- Presidential Decree No. 66 creating the Export Processing Zone Authority is an offshoot of an earlier law namely, Republic Act No. 5490 which originally established the Mariveles Port in Bataan as a foreign trade zone. Presidential Decree No. 66 amended said law to extend the tax incentives to the raw materials used in the manufacture of the finished products for export. The objective of these two laws is apparent in that it encourages enterprises to engage in the manufacture of products primarily for export by providing for incentives particularly in the form of tax exemptions. A subsequent law, Presidential Decree No. 1449 was issued to introduce more amendments to P.D. 66 one of which is the addition of new subsections to Section ~8, particularly subsection ( i) ' which is also the subject of dispute between petitioner and. respondent. Respondent sees the amendment as adding new restrictions to the tax exemptions provided by P.D. 66. This Court holds otherwise and We believe that the amendments introduced to P.D. 66 is still in line with the basic policy of the government of attracting enterprises especially foreign investors to engage in export-oriented activities within the zone. Thus, these amendments serve not to restrict or impose additional requirements to what had earlier been provided 277

DECISION - C.T.A. Case 1 No. 4709 - 8- but seek to introduce more incentives to make it more attractive. Proof of this is the issuance of Executive Order No. 226, better known as the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987, which makes reference to Section 18(i) of P.O. 66 as one of the additional incentives an EPZA registered enterprise may be entitled to. As to the argument- of respondent that these petroleum products do not form part of the export products manufactured hence taxes imposed are not refundable, the aforecited Philippine Phosphate case has this to say: Section 17(1) covers domestic merchandise, raw materials, supplies, articles and wares of every description, except those prohibited by law, brought into the zone to be sold, stored, " broken up, repacked, ass~mbled, installed, sorted, cleaned, graded or btherwise processed, manipulated, manufactured, mixed or used directly or indirectly in such activity shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations. Oil products produced by local oil companies may be classified as domestic merchandise, raw materials or supplies as legally defined in the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of Customs vs. (Caltex "Philippines), Inc. (GR No. L-13067, Dec. 29, 1959, 106 Phil 829) which states that supplies or materials shall include gasoline and other petroleum product~ for purposes of exemp~ion from customs duties under Article 103 of Republic Act No. 387. For what purpose, among others, these products may be brought into the zone for processing, manipulation, manufacture, mixed with foreign and domestic merchandise or used directly or indirectly in such activity. In our particular case, the petroleum products delivered to Petitioner is used in the 278

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 9- processing of fertilizer for expurt. While Respondent may be correct that these products did not form part of the fertilizer exported nevertheless, the law does not provide for such requirement but only requires the use of such materials directly or indirectly in such activity. The use of petroleum products like bunker oil as fuel will easily fall under the phrase "used directly or indirectly in such activity". Clearly these petroleum products can easily qualify for tax and duty free privileges under Section 17(1Y of P.D. 66. Similarly, we can say that although the petroleum products do not directly form part of the copper cathodes produced by petitioner, they are nevertheless used indirectly in the manufacturing process, thus they may fall within the tax exemption provided by law. The Philippine Phosphate case also passed upon the disputed interpretation of Section 17(1)(2) of P.D. 66 when it ruled, thus: A close analysis of the said Section 17(1)(2) will show that it allows foreign or domestic merchandise, raw materials and supplies, except those prohibited by law to be brought into the zone for sale, storage, repacking, processing, manufacturing, mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise or used ~whether directly or indirectly in such activity and shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations nor to local tax ordinances. This privilege will be enjoyed notwithstanding the provision of other law to the contrary. Contrary to the allegation of the Respondent that Section 17(1) does not provide for duty and tax exemption privilege, this Court disagrees. The phrase "shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations nor to local tax ordinances, 279

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 10 - the provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding" cannot be interpreted in any other manner than to mean that merchandise or supplies brought into the zone are exempt from customs duties and taxes. Anent the issue of whether petitioner is the proper party to ask for a refund, this Court rules in the affirmative. The tax exemption privilege provided by Presidential Decree No. 66 extends to EPZA-registered enterprises, therefore, petitioner as an EPZA-registered enterprise has the personality to invoke this privilege. Having thus established that petitioner , has sufficient legal basis to ask for a refund/tax credit of the ad valorem and specific taxes, we are now cal.led upon to delve into the factuai basis of petitioner's claim. A comparative ana 1ys is � of the invoices, certifications, confirmation receipts-and payment orders issued by the BIR reveals that out of the P57,211,166.78 prayed for, only the amount of P4;503,972.53 can be granted for the following reasons: 1) In computing for the prescriptive period with respect to excise taxes particularly on petroleum products, the date of payment is counted from the date of removal pursuant to Section 127 of the Tax Code which provides in part, thus: Section 127 Payment of excise taxes on domestic products. (a) Persons liable; time for payment. 280

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - J1 - unless otherwise especially allowed, excise taxes on domestic products shall be paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal from the place of production. Provided, that the excise tax on locally manufactured petroleum products and indigenous petroleum levied under Section 145 and 151(a)(4) respectively, of this Title shall be paid within 15 days from t:he date of removal thereot from the place of production. x x x Thus, in the overall computation of the amount to be refunded, we excluded the excise taxes on these petroleum products that were paid prior to February 3, 1990 (Exhibits "D-109", "D-110" "D-119", "D-123" to "D- 136", "E-1" to "E-176", "F" to "F-1" to "F-215", "G-1" to "G-326", "H-1" to "H-263" and "I") because the right to claim for the same had already prescribed pursuant to section 230 of the Tax Code which' r~quires that claims for refund should be made within two years from the date of payment of the tax sought to be refunded. The judicial claim for refund in the form of this Petition was filed only on February 3, 1992, thus, excise taxes paid on these petroleum products from November 1985 to February 2, 1990 cannot be included in the computation. 2) Claims for refund made by the petitioner in the administrative level (BIR) for the year 1991 (Exhibits "Q" and "Q-1") were likewise exGluded from the computation as they were not brought before this Court 281

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 12 - for adjudication. The instant petition is limited to the amount of P57,211,166.78 which covers the period from November 1985 to December 31, 1990 only. This is evidenced by paragraph 6 of the Petition for Review which provides in part, thus: 6. After Novembet, 1985 and onwards, PASAR's application for tax refunds, specifically for indirect taxes paid for specific tax and ad valorem taxes, have not been acted upon by the Bureau of Internal Revenue with finality, and in the meantime, the tax claim/refunds of PASAR have amounted to FIFTY SEVEN MILLION TWO HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX PESOS AND SEVENTY EIGHT CENTAVOS (P57,211,166.78) as of December 31, 1990 as summarized in Annex A-1 to A- 10, inclusive x x x (Unrierscoring supplied). Hereunder is the detailed computation of the amount to be granted to Petitioner as refund of the specific and ad valorem taxes paid on the petroleum products, thus: Computation of Refundable Excise Tax: (Exhs. "D", "K-1" to "K-11-A") Ad Valorem/ Ad Valorem/ I nvoi ce V o I u 1 e Specific Specific Product NuB!ber Date Exh. Liter .!L_ Tax Rate Tax Kerosene 75938 12-03-90 D-1 420 0.50 210.00 Diesel 70057 12-31-90 D-2 292,840 0.45 131,778.00 Extra 03094 11-28-90 D-3 2. 52 20,160.00 Diesel 70044 11-30-90 D-4 8,000 0. 1.5 160,711.65 Kerosene 75909 10-26-90 D-5 357,137 0.50 Diesel 70029 10-01-90 D-6 1.3351 105.00 1.PG 40646 10-04-90 D-7 210 I. 9312 414,521.85 Diesel 70015 09-21-90 D-R 310,480 1.3351 7,570.30 3,920 301,107.77 225,532 282

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 13 - Ad Valorem/ Ad Valore11/ I nvoi ce Volume Specific Specific Product Number Date Exh. Liter ..!L. Tax Rate Tax Diesel 70017 09-30-90 D-9 lQI,, 454 3, 820 1.3351 139,456.54 LPG 40624 09-01-90 D-10 3,840 1.9312 7,377.18 LPG 40626 09-04-90 D-11 10,000 3,840 1.9312 7, 415. 81 LPG 40632 09-08-90 D-12 420 3,860 1.9312 7, 415. 81 LPG 40635 09-11-90 D-13 3,890 1.9312 7,454.43 LPG 40637 09-14-90 D-14 327,658 1, 930 1.9312 7,512.37 LPG 40640 09-28-90 D-15 1.9312 3, 727.22 LPG 40630 09-06-90 D-16 10,000 300 1.9312 579.36 LPG 40643 09-29-90 D-17 420 3, 870 1.9312 7,473.74 Extra 90180 08-30-90 D-18 3.5964 35,964.00 Kerosene 75857 08-30-90 D-19 325,717 3,880 1.1704 491.57 Diesel 70004 08-01-90 D- 20 1, 950 1.1532 LPG 40602 08-06-90 D-21 256,826 3,860 377,855.21 LPG 40608 08-09-90 D-22 3,870 1.8946 7, 351.05 LPG 40611 08-10-90 D-23 3, 81,0 I. 8946 3,694.47 . LPG 4061] 08-13-90 D-24 3,830 1.8946 7,313.16 LPG 40615 08-16-90 D-25 3,800 1.8946 7,332.I 0 LPG 40619 08-18-90 D-26 3, 810 I.B9 46 1, 275. 26 LPG 40622 08-22-90 D-27 1.8946 7,256.32 I.PG 40621 08-27-90 D-28 250 1.8946 7,199.48 LPG 40606 08-08-90 D-29 1.9946 1,218.43 Extra 69860 07-05-90 D-30 3, 760- I. 8946 473.65 Kerosene 98632 07-03-90 D-31 3,760 3.5964 35,964.00 Diesel 56289 07-31-90 D-32 2,400 1.1704 491.57 LPG 40657 07-02-90 D-33 l, 910 1.1532 LPG 40663 07-04-90 D- J4 3,850 1.8946 375,616.84 LPG 40666 07-07-90 D-35 3,850 I. 8946 7,123.70 LPG 40678 07-14-90 D-36 I, 930 I. 8946 7,123.70 LPG 40679 07-16-90 D-37 3,880 1.8946 1,,547.04 LPG 40683 07-18-90 D-38 3,880 1.8946 3,618.69 LPG 40686 07-20-90 D-39 3,860 I .8946 7,2911.21 LPG '�0690 07-24-90 D-40 3,850 1.8946 7,294.21 LPG 40693 - 07-26-90 D-41 I. 89116 3,656.58 LPG 40696 07-28-90 D-42 150 1.8946 7,351.05 LPG 40698 01-31-90 D-43 1.8946 7,351.05 LPG 40682 07-17-90 D-44 3,820 1.8946 7,313.16 Diesel 56270 06-30-90 D-45 3, 840 I. 8946 1,294.21 LPG 40523 06-0l-90 D-46 3,850 l. 198 2 284.19 LPG 40528 06-05-90 D-47 3, 830 I. 0751 LPG 40531 06-08-90 D-48 3,850 1.0151 307,728.91 LPG 40533 06-11-90 D-49 3,850 I. 0751 4,106.88 LPG 40541 06-16-90 D-50 3,880 I. 0751 4,128.30 LPG 40542 06-18-90 D-~1 1,940 I. 0751 4,139.14 LPG 40545 06-21-90 D-52 1.0151 4,117.63 LPG 40549 06-25-90 D-53 I. 0751 4, 13 9.14 1.0751 4,139.14 4,171.39 2,085.69 283

DECISION - - 11� - ~d Valorem/ Specific C.T.A. Case No. ft709 ~d Valore11/ V o I u 11 e Specific Tax I nvo i ce Exh. Liter .!L_ Tax Rate Product Number Date LPG 40652 06-26-90 D-54 10,000 3'8 70 1.0751 4,160.64 LPG 40655 06-28-90 D-55 10,000 3,940 1.075l 4,235.89 LPG 40527 06-04-90 D-56 10,000 1. 0751 LPG 40548 06-22-90 D-57 424,879 ISO 1. 0751 161.27 Diesel 69914 06-0 l-90 0-58 250 1.1982 268.78 Diesel 69918 06-0HO D-59 10,000 1.1982 11,982.00 Diesel 69922 05-03-90 D-60 10,000 3,850 I. 198 2 11,982.00 Diesel 56255 05-31-90 D-61 10,000 1'260 l. 198 2 11,982.00 LPG 40590 05-04-90 D-62 10,000 1 '910 1. 0751 509,090.02 l.PG 110600 05-14-90 0-63 10,000 l. 0751 LPG 40519 05-30-90 D-64 291,609 300 1.0751 4' 139.14 LPG 40594 05-09-90 D-65 200 1.0751 1,354.63 LPG 40509 05-26-90 0-66 10,000 1. 0751 2,053.114 Diesel 69795 04-26-90 D-67 10,000 3,660 l.JJ7l Diesel 69800 04-27-90 D-68 10,000 3,060 1.3 371 322.53 Diesel 69906 04-28-90 D-69 10,000 3,810 l. 3371 215.02 Diesel 69910 04-29-90 D-70 10,000 3,790 1.3371 13,371.00 Diesel 69912 OH0-90 D-71 10,000 1,990 1.3] 71 13 '171.00 Diesel 56243 04-30-90 D-72 10,000 3,810 13,371.00 LPG 40558 04-02-90 D-73 10,000 3,830 1.3 371 LPG 40563 04-05-90 D-74 10,000 1. 0817 13 '371.00 LPG 40568 04-11-90 D-75 235,920 250 1.0817 13 '371.00 LPG 40571 04-14-90 D-76 7'54 3 100 1. 0817 389,910.39 LPG 40576 04-18-90 D-77 1.0817 3,959.02 LPG 40584 04-24-90 D-78 3,830 l. 0817 3, 310.00 LPG 40587 04-30-90 D-79 3,860 1.0817 4,121.28 LPG 40562 04-03-90 D-80 3,850 l. 0817 4,099.64 LPG 40575 04-17-90 D-81 3,860 1.0817 2,152.58 Extra 56191 03-03-90 D-82 3,860 1.0817 4,121.28 Diesel 56125 03-02-90 D-83 3'8 70 3.6583 4' 14 2. 91 Diesel 56388 03-03-90 D-84 1.3371 Diesel 56387 03-03-90 D-85 1.3371 270.43 Diesel 56389 03-06-90 D-86 1.3371 108 .17 Diesel 56394 03-06-90 D-87 1.3J7l 36,583.00 Diesel 56396 03-07-90 D-88 1. 3371 13,371.00 Diesel 56399 03-08-90 D-89 1.3 371 Diesel 69702 03-09-90 D-90 1.3371 13 '3 71.00 Diesel 56226 03-J0-90 D-91 1.3 371 13 '371. 00 Diesel 56227 OJ-Jl-90 D-92 1. JJ71 J3' 371.00 LPG 22169 03-05-90 D-93 l.3 371 13,371.00 l.PG 22172 03-06-90 D-94 1.0817 13,371.00 I.PG 22181 03-13-90 D-95 1.0817 LPG 22185 03-14-90 D-96 1.0817 13' 371.00 LPG 22186 03-1~-90 D-97 l. 0817 I 3, 371.00 LPG 22187 03-16-90 D-98 1.0817 315,448.63 1.0817 10,085.75 4' 14 2. 91 4,175.36 4,164.55 4' 17 5. 30 4,m.6s 4' 186.18 284

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 - 15 - I Ad Valorea/ Ad Yalore1/ Invoice V o I u 1 e Specific Specific Product Ruaber Date Exh. Liter ..!t.:_ Tax Rate Tax LPG 22192 03-20-90 D-99 3,830 1.0817. 41142.91 LPG 41164.55 LPG 22196 03-22-90 D-100 31850 1. 0817 4,142.91 LPG 1. 0817 41164.55 LPG 22199 03-24-90 D-101 31830 1. 0817 41175.36 LPG 1. 0817 LPG 40552 03-27-90 D-102 31850 1. 0817 162.26 LPG 1. 0817 432.68 LPG 40555 03-29-90 D-103 31860 I. 0817 216.34 Diesel l. 0817 162.26 LPG 22166 03-01-90 D-104 150 1.2599 4001774.19 LPG 0.9351 31525.33 LPG 22182 03-13-90 D-105 400 0.9351 31534.68 LPG 0.9351 3,525.33 LPG 22194 03-21-90 D-106 200 0.9351 11776.69 LPG 0.9351 31609.49 LPG 40553 03-27-90 D-107 150 0.9351 31600.14 LPG 0.9351 31618.84 LPG 56211 02-28-90 D-108 3181100 0.9351 3,590.78 LPG 0.9351 18 7. 02 LPG 22135 02-12-90 D-Ill 31770 0.9351 140.27 0.9351 140.27 22139 02-14-90 D-ll2 31780 P4,503,972.53 22143 02-16-90 D-113 31710 22151 02-21-90 D-114 11900 22157 02-24-90 D-115 31860 22158 02-26-90 D-116 31850 22162 02-27-90 D-117 3,870 22164 02-28-90 D-118 31840 22134 02-10-90 D-120 200 22141 02-15-90 D-121 150 22155 02-23-90 D-122 150 TOTAL AHOUNT REFUNDABLE WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court hereby orders the issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount of P4,503,972.53 in favor o the petitioner. SO ORDERED. M-~ t'<~~ RAMON 0. DE V A Associate J ge 285 ,.

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4709 16 WE CONCUR: '~(2. c.~ kRNESTO D. ACOSTA CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13 Article VII of the constitution. Cl~a.. ~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals 286