cta_decision CTA Case No. 1119311193 2026-04-21

SHELL PILIPINAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (Consolidated with CTA Case Nos. 11046 & 11102)

CTA Form No. 8 111111111111111111111111111 11111 1111111111 11111 111111111111111111111111111111111 22-000650-0071 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NOS. 11046, 11102 & 11193 SHELL PILIPINAS NOTICE OF DECISION CORPORATION, (FORMERLY PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION) Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. AYESHA HABIA B. GUILING-MATANOG ATTY. LARA NICOLET. GONZALES ATTY. KARL KENNY M. RAMO Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City LAYUG CELICIOUS-SY & VILLAPANDO Unit 503, Sth Floor, The Linden Suites 37 San Miguel Avenue, Ortigas Center 1600 Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on April 21, 2026, a Decision was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, April27, 2026. .. Atty. Maria Jo~ Chan-Te Executive ~urt III Page l of l

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION SHELL PILIPINAS CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Present: CORPORATION (FORMERLY PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION), Petitioner, BACORRO-VILLENA,Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, fl. - versus- COMMISSIONER OF s ----------------- INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Promulgated: ~ : D5Pr1 � APR 212026 j ~ X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _(( X DECISION BACORRO-VILLENA, J.: Before the Court are the consolidated Petitions for Review filed by t petitioner Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) (petitioner/Shell Pilipinas) pursuant to . Section 3(a),' Rule 8, in relation to Section 3(a)(2)( Rule 4, ofthe Revised SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. - (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction ofthe Commissioner of Internal, Revenue on disputed assessments or claim s for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Comm issioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collecti on of the taxes. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. - The Court in Division shall exercise:

CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x- -- ---- - - ----- -- ----- -- - -- ----------- - -- - ----- - - --- -- - -- - - ----- -- ----- - -- -- x Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals3 (RRCTA). They seek a declaration from the Court that petitioner is entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate (TCC) for the alleged erroneously or illegally paid ' excise taxes on the imported bunker fuel oil (fuel oil) which was subsequently sold and delivered to Pioneer Float Glass Manufacturing, Inc. (PFGMI), a claimed tax-exempt entity, during the period of 01 January 2021 to 31 August 2021 in the aggregate amount of P135,540,ooo.oo.4 Previously, the petitions have been separately and respectively docketed as CTA Case Nos. 11046,511102,6 and 11193.? In CTA Case No. 11046, petitioner seeks to be entitled to a refund or issuance of a TCC in the amount of P6o million, representing the excise taxes it allegedly erroneously paid to respondent on the fuel oil imported from December 2020 to March 2021, and was subsequently sold and delivered to PFGMI in January 2021 to Apri12o21. It also prays for the Court to order respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent/CIR) to grant petitioner a refund or tax credit in the said amount of P6o million. In CTA Case No. 11102, petitioner requests to be declared entitled to a refund of or issuance of a TCC amounting to P3o million. This amount represents the excise taxes allegedly erroneously paid to '(f.' respondent on fuel oil imported from March 2021 to June 2021, and was . sold and delivered to PFGMI in May 2021 to June 2021. Petitioner also (a) Exclusive orig inal over or appe llate jurisdicti on to review by appeal the fo llowin g: (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arisi ng under the National Intern al Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Intern al Revenue, w here th e Nationa l Interna l Revenue Code o r oth er appl icable law prov ides a specific period for action : Provided, that in case of di sputed assessments, the in acti on of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue w ithin the one hundred eighty day-period under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code sha ll be deemed a deni al for purposes of allow ing th e taxpayer to appeal h is case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a fo rm al decisio n of the Commiss ioner of Interna l Revenue o n the tax case; Provided, further, that sho uld the taxpayer opt to await the fi nal decision of the Commiss ioner o f Interna l Revenue on the dis puted assessments ' beyond the o ne hundred eighty day-period abovementioned, the taxpayer may appeal such fi nal decision to the Court under Secti on 3(a), Rule 8 of these Rules; and Provided, still f urther, that in the case of c laims fo r refund of taxes erroneously or illegally co llected, the taxpayer must file a petition fo r review with the Court pr ior to th e expiration of the two-year period under Section 229 of the N ati onal Intern al Revenue Code[ .] ( Emph as is and underscoring supplied) A.M . No. 05- 11-07-CTA dated 22 Novem ber 2005. See Stipulati on of Issues, Joint Stipu lation o f Facts and Issues (JSFI), D ivision Docket (CT A Case Nos. II 046, Ill 02 & 11193), Volume II, pp. 887-888 . Filed on 19 December 2022, id., Vo lume I, pp. 5-27. 6 Filed o n 17 March 2023, Divisio n Docket (CT A Case No. Ill 02), pp. 6-26. Filed o n 16 June 2023, Div ision Docket (CT A Case No . 11193), pp . 6-2 8.

CTA Case Nos. 11 046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECIS IO N x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x fuel oil was withdrawn from SHIFT (through the Tabangao Depot Zone) and delivered to PFGMI's premises at the Asahi Special Economic Zone (ASEZ) at 730 MH Del Pilar Street, Brgy. Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City, for the eventual use in the latter's PEZA-registered operations, particularly� the manufacture and production of float glass for exports.18 The details of the said deliveries are as follows :19 Period Volume Excise Tax Rate Excise Tax Amount P1'),000,000.00 January 2021 2,')00,000 P6.oo 16,20 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 13,800,000.00 February 2021 2,700,000 6.00 15, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 15,000,000 .00 March 2021 2,300,000 6.00 1'),000,000.00 15,000,000.00 April2021 2,5oo,ooo 6.oo 1'),000,000.00 15,540,000.00 May 2021 2,')00,000 6.oo P135.54o,ooo.oo June 2021 2,500,000 6 .oo July 2021 2,500,000 6.oo August 2021 2,500,000 6.00 September 2021 2,590,000 6 .00 Total Excise Amount According to petitioner, PFGMI is a PEZA-registered entity and exempt from all internal revenue taxes for its purchases of raw materials' and supplies used for its PEZA-registered operations pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 7916,20 as amended by RA 874821 and Executive Order (EO) No. 226.22 Relative thereto, Section 13523 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, states that sale of petroleum products to entities which are, by virtue of a law, exempt for direct and indirect taxes is exempt from excise tax. Acting on the above legal bases, petitioner filed three (3) separate Applications for Tax Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914) with the BIR, along with accompanying Letter-Requests for the refund or issuance of t a tee for the excise taxes paid on the fuel oil which was subsequently sold and delivered to PFGMI (collectively, administr~tive claims), for the following periods and respective amounts, to wit: 18 ld. 19 Summarized from the tables alleged in the Petition for Reviews in CTA Case Nos. II 046, Ill 02' and 111 93. 20 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR TI-l E LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND MECHANISMS FOR THE CREATION, OPERATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND COORDINATION OF SPECIAL ECONOM IC ZONES IN THE PHILIPPINES, CREATING FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE PH ILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), AN D FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 21 AN ACT AMENDING REPU BLIC ACT NO. 791 6, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "SPECIAL ECONOMI C ZONE ACT OF 1995". 22 THE OMN IBUS INVESTM ENTS CODE OF 1987. 23 SEC. 135. Petroleum Products Sold to International Carriers and Exempt Entities or Agencies.

CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Comm issioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x-- ------- - --- ---- -- --------------------------------------------------------x On 05 January 2023, the Second Division issued Summons3s to respondent. Within the extended period,36 on 07 March 2023, respondent filed his or her Answer.37 There, respondent cited the following special and affirmative defenses: (t) petitioner is liable for excise taxes on the imported fuel oil pursuant to Section 12938 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; (2) petitioner failed to prove that the excise taxes paid thereon are erroneously or illegally collected; (3) petitioner cannot anchor its refund claim on Section 135 of the same law considering that it pertains to the exemption of the buyers and is not applicable to the importer, manufacturer or seller of petroleum products; and (4) tax refunds are in' the nature of tax exemptions and, therefore, are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government. On o8 March 2023, respondent transmitted to the Second Division the BIR Records of CTA Case No. no46, consisting of one (1) folder with 1257 pages.39 The Second Division noted the same in a Minute Resolution dated 09 March 2023.40 Meanwhile, on 10 March 2023, the Second Division issued a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference41 and set the case for Pre-Trial Conference on 29 August 2023. In the interim, due to the reorganization of the Divisions of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA),42 the case was transferred to the First Division .43 Subsequently, on 15 August 2023, petitioner filed a "Motion for Consolidation with Motion to Amend Caption and Motion for Postponement [of Pre-Trial Conference]",44 praying for thet 35 Divis ion Docket (CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 & 11193), Volume I, p. 330. 36 See Motion for Extension ofTime to File Answer, id., pp. 332-335; Resol ution dated 10 February 2023 , id., p. 33 8. 37 ld., pp. 339-348. 38 SEC.129. Goods and Services Subject to Excise Taxes. 39 See Com pl iance, Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. II 046, Ill 02 & 111 93), Volume I, pp. 352- 354. 40 ld., p. 356. 41 ld., pp. 350-35 1. 42 Pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 01-2023 (Reorganizing the Di visions of the Court), see Minute Resolution dated 29 May 2023, id., p. 357. 43 Then composed of Presiding Ju stice Roman G. Del Rosario (Ret.), as Chairperson, Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David, as Members. 44 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. II 046, Ill 02 & 11193), Vo lume I, pp. 358-363.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------- ------------------------------------------------------------x On 11 April 2023, the Third Division issued Summons51 to respondent. On 16 May 2023, respondent filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer"52 and prayed for an additional thirty (3o) days, or until16 June 2023 to file an Answer. In the interim, the case was transferred to the Second Division53 pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 01-2023.54 After the Second Division granted the extension of time to respondent,55 the Answer56 was filed on 16 June 2023. Similar to the arguments in CTA Case No. 11046, respondent claimed that: (1) petitioner is liable for excise taxes on the imported fuel oil pursuant to Section 129 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; (2) petitioner failed to prove that the excise taxes paid thereon are erroneously or illegally collected; (3) petitioner cannot anchor its refund claim on Section 135 of the same law considering that it pertains to the exemption of the buyers and is not applicable to the importer, manufacturer or seller of petroleum products; and (4) tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and, therefore, are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government. Thereafter, respondent transmitted the BIR Records consisting of one (1) folder with 541 pages,57 which the Second Division noted in the� Minute Resolution of 05 July 2023.58 While the case was set for Pre-Trial Conference on 10 October 2023,59 petitioner filed the similar "Motion for Consolidation with t . Motion to Amend Caption and Motion for Postponement [of Pre-Trial Conference]".60 In the Resolution dated o8 September 2023,61 the Second . r Division granted the consolidation ofCTA Case No.mo2 with CTA Case 51 Di vision Docket (CTA Case No. Ill 02), p. 257. 52 ld., pp. 259-262. 53 Then composed of Associate Justice (now Presid ing Justice) Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, as Chairperson, Associate Justice Ma. Rowena Modesto-San Pedro and Associate Justice Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, as Members. 54 Reorganizing the Divisions of th e Court. See Minute Reso lution dated I5 Jun e 2023, Division Docket {CTA Case No. Ill 02), p. 274 . 55 See M inute Resolution dated 16 June 2023, id., p. 263-B. 56 ld., pp. 264-272. 57 See Compliance filed on 27 June 2023, id., pp. 276-278. 58 Id ., p. 280. 59 See Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated 2 1 June 2023, id., pp. 275-275-A. 60 Filed on I5 August 2023, id., pp. 28 1-2 86. 61 Supra at note 49.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------ -- ---- ---- ------- -- ---- --------- - -- ---- ----- ------ ---- -- ------- ------ x No. 11046, the amendment of case caption and the postponement of the pre-trial. CTA CASE NO. 11193 On 16 June 2023, petitioner also filed a Petition for Review,62� praying that judgment be rendered declaring it entitled to a refund of, or issuance of a TCC for the aggregate amount of P45,s4o,ooo.oo, representing excise taxes paid by petitioner on imported fuel oil, which was subsequently sold and delivered to PFGMI. The case was docketed as CTA Case No. 11193 and raffled to this Court's First Division.63 On o6 July 2023, the First Division issued Summons64 to respondent. After the First Division granted an extension of time to respondent,65 the Answer66 was filed on o6 September 2023. There, respondent reiterated the arguments that he or she raised in the Answers for the other two (2) cases and maintained that petitioner is not entitled to a refund. Petitioner also filed the "Motion for Consolidation with Motion for Postponement",67 requesting the consolidation of CTA Case No. 11193 with CTA Case No. 11046, both pending before the same Court Division. After respondent filed the Comment,68 the First Division consolidated the cases and further directed respondent to transmit the BIR Records.69 ' t In compliance, respondent transmitted the BIR Records consisting of one (1) folder with 772 pages,7� which the Fiq;t Division noted through a Minute Resolution dated 13 October 2023.7 62 Supra at note 7. 63 Supra at note 43. 64 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 11193), p. 348. 65 See Motion for Additional Time to file Answer filed on 04 August 2023, id., pp. 35 1-353; Minute Resolution dated 09 August 2023 , id., p. 355. 66 !d., pp. 368-381. 67 Fi led on 15 August 2023, id., pp. 356-360. , 68 See " Comment (Re: Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation with Motion for Postponement dated 15 August 2023)", id., pp. 364-366. 69 See Minute Reso lution dated 03 October 2023, id. , p. 386. 70 See Com pliance fi led on 06 October 2023, id., pp. 388-390. 71 See Minute Resolution dated 13 October 2023, Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. II 046, Il l 02 & 111 93), Vo lume I, p. 410.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x- -- ----- ------ ----- - - -- - -- --- - --- - -- ---------- ----- -- - --- - -- ------------ -- - x witnesses, namely: (1) Berenice Angelique L. Flores (Flores), petitioner's Senior Tax Advisor; (2) Farida Nimfa G. Dimailig (Dimailig) , petitioner's Country Tax Manager; and (3) ICPA Apostol-Valix. Flores' testimony, as contained in her Judicial Affidavit,82 was offered to prove, among others, that: (1) upon importation, the fuel oil is stored in petitioner's SHIFT where the monitoring and removals' thereof are recorded in the monthly Official Register Books (ORBs); (2) when the fuel oil is withdrawn from SHIFT, a Withdrawal Certificate (WC) is prepared to indicate its source, its destination, date of withdrawal, volume withdrawn, and that excise taxes thereon are paid; (3) the sale and delivery of fuel oil are also accompanied with a Bulk Delivery Note (BDN) which reflects the fuel oil's date of transfer, volume, source and destination; (4) the tax exemption is determined at the stage of sale negotiation, particularly when it executes a 'Supply Agreement' with the customer and the latter is able to present sufficient documents to prove that it is tax-exempt; (s) in this case, when the fuel oil is sold and delivered to PFGMI's premises in ASEZ, an "Application for Permit to Bring Goods from the Customs Territory into the Zone" is filed and a Permit will be issued to allow entry; (6) PFGMI will present to petitioner the following: (i) its PEZA Certificate of Registration (COR) No.18-14383 showing that it is a duly-registered ECOZONE export enterprise in ASEZ; (ii) BIR ruling No. OT-0195-2020 dated 19 February' 202084 confirming its tax exemption under the relevant laws; and (iii) a certification85 that the fuel oil will be used in the production of float glass; and (7) due to PFGMI's exemption from excise taxes, petitioner timely filed three (3) administrative claims for a refund of the erroneously paid taxes. During cross-examination, Flores confirmed that she determines the qualification for tax exemption after she reviews the supporting t documents that customer submits, that is, at the stage of sal_e negotiation.86 Petitioner did not conduct any redirect examination.87 82 Exhibit " P-27", Ju dic ia l Affidav it of Berenice Angelique L. Flores, Divisio n Docket (CTA Case Nos. 11 046, 11102 & 111 93), Vo lume II, pp . 608-625 . 83 Ex hibit " P- 16" , id., Vo lume III, p. 1416. 84 Exh ib it P- 16-1 ", id., pp. 141 7-1 4 19. 85 Exhib it " P- 16-2", id., p. 1420 . 86 TSN dated I 0 July 2024, pp. 8- 10 . 87 1d., p. 10.

CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x ---- -------- --- --- ---- ------- ---- -- - --- - -- ------------- ------- ------ ------ -x Dimailig's testimony, on the other hand, as contained in her Judicial Affidavit,88 was offered to prove mainly that petitioner's bases for tax exemption are anchored on RA 7916, as amended, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 66,89 EO 226, and Section 135 in relation to Sections 20490 and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Dimailig reiterated that PFGMI is a PEZA-registered enterprise and thus, exempt from excise taxes on the purchases of goods and services used in the PEZA- registered operations. Therefore, the invoices which petitioner issued to' PFGMI do not include excise taxes on the sold fuel oil. On cross-examination, Dimailig emphasized that based on the abovementioned legal provisions, the BIR issued a ruling that confirmed PFGMI's tax exemption.91 Petitioner did not conduct redirect examination.92 When ICPA Apostol-Valix took the witness stand, she testified through her Judicial Affidavit93 and declared that: (1) she performed a walkthrough with petitioner's process owners to ascertain the importation process and document flow in connection with the importation of fuel oil, the payment of taxes thereon, the withdrawal from SHIFT and the eventual sale and delivery thereof to PFGMI (that is the subject ofthe instant case); (2) petitioner paid excise taxes totaling P135,s4o,ooo.oo on fuel oil imported from December 2020 to June 2021' which was sold and delivered to PFGMI, a tax-exempt entity, from January to September 2021; (3) the imported fuel oil that PFGMI actually received is exempt from excise taxes, thus petitioner billed and collected amounts net of excise tax for said sales; (4) petitioner is entitled to a refund of the erroneously paid excise taxes pursuant to Section 135(c)94 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; and (s) she determined the authenticity and due execution of the supporting documents by comparing them with the o.riginals, computer print-outs and certified true copies (CTCs) thereof.t ' 88 Exhibit "P-28", Division Docket (CTA Case No. II 046), Volume II, pp. 762-768. 89 CREATrNG THE EXPORT PROCESSrNG ZONE AUTHORITY AND REVISrNG REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5490. 90 Sec. 204. Authority ofthe Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. 91 TSN dated 10 July 2024, pp. 15-16. 92 ld., p. 17. 93 Exhibit "P-70", Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Rose Anne Apostol-Valix, Division Docket (CTA Case, Nos. 11046, 11102 & 11193), Volume III, pp. 11 23-1130. 94 SEC. 135. Petroleum Products Sold to International Carriers and Exempt Entities or Agencies. (c) Entities which are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxes.

CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue � DECISION x----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------x On cross-examination, ICPA Apostol-Valix admitted that she assumed that the documents she examined were also submitted to the BIR when petitioner filed its administrative claims. She also clarified that based on her interpretation of the Tax Code and the relevant BIR ruling, petitioner's sale of imported fuel oil to PFGMI is exempted from excise taxes.95 On redirect examination, ICPA Apostol-Valix declared that some' of the documents she examined to determine the merit of petitioner's claim for refund are the PFGMI's PEZA COR, the Letter-Requests (which petitioner had filed with the BIR) and the PFGMI's certifications.96 No re-cross examination was conducted.97 Without other witnesses to present, on 22 July 2024, petitioner filed its "Formal Offer ofEvidence"98 (FOE) and offered Exhibits "P-1" to "P-7o", inclusive of sub-markings, in support of its claim for refund. Respondent filed his or her "Comment (Re: Petitioner's [FOE])" thereto on 29 July 2024.99 In the Resolution dated o8 October 2024,100 the First Division admitted all of petitioner's offered exhibits. On respondent's part, Revenue Officer (RO) Liza Lyn Senina- Arabit (Senina-Arabit) was presented as the sole witness. Through her Judicial Affidavit,101 she testified that: (1) she was one (1) of the assigned' officers, authorized by Letter of Authority (LOA) No. LOA-124-2022- oooooo76/eLA2o2oooo30796102 dated 02 December 2022, to evaluate petitioner's claim for refund; (2) through a Memorandum dated 10 October 2023103 addressed to Large Taxpayers Service's (then) Officer- in-Charge - Assistant Commissioner Jethro M. Sabariaga (OIC-Asst. Comm. Sabariaga), she recommended the denial for the claim of refund due to the following: (i) petitioner failed to prove that the excise taxes were not billed to the exempt buyer; (ii) it did not provide the WCs' complete details; and (iii) it did not present the duplicate original . delivery receipts; and (3) due to said findings, respondent issued thet 95 TSN dated 10 July 2024, pp. 24-27. 96 Jd., p. 28. 97 Jd . 98 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. II 046, Ill 02 & 111 93), Volume III, pp. 11 68-1211 . 99 Jd., Volume IV, pp. 1525-1528. 100 ld., pp. 1543-1 544. 101 Exhibit " R-5", Judicial Affidavit of Revenue Officer L iza Lyn Senina-Arabit, id., pp. 1162-1 167. 102 Exhibit " R-1", BIR Records 11046, p. 537. 103 Exhibit "R-2", id., pp. 559-566.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x-- -- -------------------------------- -- ---- ------ --- ----- ----- -- ------- -- -- -x Denial Letter dated 10 October 2023104 rejecting petitioner's claim of P3o million. During the cross-examination, RO Senina-Arabit confirmed she referred to PFGMI as the exempt buyer in her Judicial Affidavit. She also confirmed that PFGMI is exempt from both direct and indirect taxes. She did not also deny that petitioner sold the fuel oil (subject of the instant case) to PFGMI and paid by the latter. As for the requirements, under Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) N0.19-2oo6,105 she averred that BDNs are not included as a requirement in the list.106 On redirect examination, while RO Senina-Arabit confirmed that fuel oil was sold to PFGMI, she could not verify if it was a part of the subject importations due to the incomplete details in the supporting documentS.10 7 No re-cross examination was conducted.108 On 19 November 2024, respondent filed his or her FOE10 9 and submitted Exhibit "R-1" to "R-4" as supporting documents to the sole witness's testimony. After petitioner's Comment,110 the First Division admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits.111 It then directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda. Accordingly, on 26 March 2025, petitiOner filed its Memorandum112 while respondent filed his or her M e m o r a n d u m11 on 3 27 March 2025. In the Minute Resolution of 21 April 2025,114 the consolidated cases were submitted for decision.t 104 Supra at note 3 1. 105 Prescribing the Guidelines and Procedures for the Processing of Pending Claims for Tax Credit/Refund of Excise Tax paid on Petro leum Products. 106 TSN dated 14 November 2024, pp. 9- 13. 107 ld., p. 14. 108 Id. 109 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. 11 046, 111 02 & 11193), Vo lume IV, pp. 1556- 1560 . 110 See "Comment [On Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence dated November 19, 2024]", id., pp. 1563- 1567. Ill See Resolution dated 20 February 2025, id., pp. 1575-1576. 11 2 Jd., pp. 1577- 1598. 11 3 ld. , pp. 1600- 1612. 11 4 Id., p. 16 16.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of � Internal Revenue DECISION x-- -- -------- --- ---- -- -- - ------ -- -------- - ----- ------ ----- - - -------- - - -- ---- x 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 proofofdestruction. No credit or refund oftaxes 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. 118 Relative thereto, Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides- SEC. 229. Recovery ofTax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. - No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery ofany national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been � erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or ofany penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to 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 pro ceeding may be maintained , w hether 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.119 t From the foregoing, it is clear that in cases of recovery of . erroneously paid or illegally collected tax, both the administrative claim 118 Italics in the original text, emphasis and underscoring supplied. 119 Italics in the original text and emphasis supplied.

CTA Case Nos. 11 046, 11102 and 111 93 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of � Internal Revenue DEC ISIO N x- ---- - ----------- --- - - ----- - --- -- -- ----- ------- - -------- - -- --- -- -- ---- -- ---x for refund and the filing of the suit or the judicial claim for refund should be made before the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax. Timeliness of the filing of the claim is mandatory and jurisdictional and, thus, the � Court cannot take cognizance of a judicial claim for refund filed either prematurely or out of time. It is worthy to underscore that as for the judicial claim, tax law even explicitly provides that it be filed within two (2) years from payment of the tax "regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment."120 Moreover, the foregoing provisions allow the recovery 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.121 Ergo, for the subject claim for refund to prosper, petitioner must not only have established that it has timely filed its refund claim, but it must have also proven that the subject excise tax paid is an "erroneous or illegal tax." PETITIONER TIMELY FILED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CLAIMS FOR REFUND. Records show that from December 2020 to March 2021, March to June 2021, and June to August 2021, petitioner imported fuel oil through SHIFT, and paid the corresponding excise taxes thereon, as follows: Vessel SAD'" No. SAD Date Volume Paid Rate Amount of Payment Date Mt Muskie 16 December 2020 (in Liters) Excise Tax (stated in SSDT"l) (102271'5124 P6.oo ~8.7Q8,717 P232,7 92 ,302 .oo '7 Decembe<.~o'~t 120 Commissioner ofinternal Revenue v. San Miguel Corporation, et seq., G.R. Nos. 180740 & 180910, 11 November 20 19. 12 1 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation , G.R. No. 188497, 25 April 201 2, citing the definition provided in BLAC K'S LAW DICTION ARY, Fifth Editi on, p. 486. 122 Sing le Admin istrative Document. 123 Statement of Settlement of Duties and Taxes. 124 Exhibits "P- I-3" and " P-1 -3- I", Div isio n Docket (CTA Case Nos. 11046, Ill 02 & 111 93), Vo lume III, pp. 12 16- 12 17. 125 Exhibit " P- 1-4", id., p. 12 19.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,111 02 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue D ECI SION x--- ---- ---------------- -- -------- - - --- ------------ ---- - -- -- - ------- - ----- -- x Mt SCF Provider (648126 13 January 2021 48,675,667 6.00 292,054,002.00 15 January 2021127 Mt Silver Orla 19 February 2021 48,236,004 6.oo 289,416,024.00 Mt Silver Linda C22491l8 17 March 2021 46,065,213 6.oo 276.391,278.oo 22 February 20~1119 Mt Yankul Silver (3626130 10 May 2021 47,807,263 6.00 286,843, 578.oo Mt Yankul Silver C6296131 15 June 2021 38,697,102 6.00 232,182,612.00 18 March 20~1131 Mt Yankul Silver C7849134 15 June 2021 9,666,914 6.00 n May 2o21133 , Mt Silver Esther C785o136 19 July 2021 48.393,183 6.oo 58,001,484.00 17 June 2o21135 Mt Silver Orla C9259138 16 August 2021 46,196,783 6.00 290,359,098.00 19A ugust 2021137 TOTAL (10635140 372,5)6 ,846 277,18o,6g8.oo 21 July 2o21139 P2,2)5, 221 ,0 7 6 . o o 17 August 2021141 The following are the pertinent dates relative to petitioner's claims for refund or tax credit, viz. : A. CTA Case No.no46 SAD No. Payment Date Two (2)-Year Filing of Filing of Judicial Prescriptive Period Administrative Claim Claim (1022715 17 December 2020 C648 15 January 2021 17 December 2022 26 October 2021'4> 19 December C2249 22 February 2021 15 January 2023 C3626 18 March 2021 22 February 2023 2022143 I 18 March 2023 B. CTA Case No. 11102 SAD No. Payment Date Two (2)-Year Filing of Filing of C3626 18 March 2021 Prescriptive Period Administrative Claim Judicial Claim C6296 11 May 2021 18 March 2023 C7849 17 June 2021 11 May 2023 28 December 2021'44 17 March 2023'45 17 June 2023 126 Exhibit " P-2-3-1 ", id., p. 1231. 127 Exhibit " P-2-4", id., p. 1233. 128 Exhibits " P-3-3" and "P-3-3-1 " , id ., pp. 1244- 1245. 129 Exhibit " P-3-4", id. , p. 1247. 130 Exhibit " P-4-3-1 ", id., p. 1260. 131 Exhibit " P-4-4-1 ", id., p. 1263. 132 Exhibits " P-5-3" and " P-5-3- 1", id., pp. 1274-1275. 133 Exhibit " P-5-4", id ., p. 1277. 134 Exh ibits " P-6-3" and " P-6-3-1 ", id ., pp. 1289- 1290. 135 Exhibit "P-6-4", id., p. 1292. 136 Exhibit " P-7-3-1 ", id ., p. 1305. 137 Exhibit"P-7-4-1 ", id., p. 1309. 138 Exhibits " P-8-3" and " P-8-3-1 ", id., pp. 1319- 1320. 139 Exhibit "P-8-4", id ., p. 1323. 140 Exhibits "P-9-3" and "P-9-3-1 ", id., pp. 1335-1 336. 141 Exh ibit "P-9-4", id., p. 1339. 142 Exhibits " P-21 " to " P-21-1 ", supra at note 24. 143 Supra at note 5. Since 17 December 2022 falls on a Saturday, the deadl ine shall be on the next working day, that is, 19 December 2022. 144 Exhibits "P-21 -2" to " P-21-3", supra at note 25. 145 Supra at note 6.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,111 02 and 111 93 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECI S ION x-------------------------------- ----- --------------------------------------x C. CTA Case No. 11193 SAD No. Payment Date Two (2)-Year Filing of Filing of 17 June 2021 Prescriptive Period Administrative Claim Judicial Claim ' C7849 19 August 2021 17 June 2023 C78so 21 July 2021 19 August 2023 01 April 2022146 16 June 2023141 C9259 17 August 2021 21 July 2023 (10635 17 August 2023 Considering that the filings of the administrative and judicial claims were all done within the respective two (2)-year prescriptive periods, the present refund claims have not prescribed. This Court shall now proceed to resolve to determine whether petitioner was able to prove by sufficient evidence that the subject excise taxes paid are erroneous or illegal. THE EXCISE TAXES PAID ON IMPORTED FUEL OIL SOLD TO PFGMI, A PEZA-REGISTERED ENTITY, ARE ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY COLLECTED. Respondent avers that petitioner, being an importer of bunker fuel oil, is liable to pay the excise taxes thereon. The only instance that petitioner may invoke a claim for refund is the erroneous payment of the excise tax. Unfortunately, no such error exists in this case because. the excise taxes were legally and validly collected from petitioner as the statutory taxpayer. Respondent also contends that Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, cannot serve as the basis for petitioner's claim for refund of the excise taxes paid on the ground that the provision applies exclusively to exempt entities, such as PFGMI, and not to importers like petitioner. We cannot sustain respondent.t 146 Exhibits "P-2 1-4" to "P-2 1-5", supra at note 26. 147 Supra at note 7.

CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x-- - - -- ---------- --- ------ ------- -------- -- ------- ------ --------------- -- ---x into the ECOZONE are not subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations, to wit - Rule XV of the IRR of RA 7916 RULE XV Incentives to ECOZONE Export and Free Trade Enterprises SECTION 1. Exemption from Duties and Taxes on Merchandise. Merchandise, raw materials,� supplies, articles, equipment, machineries, spare parts and wares of every description brought into the ECOZONE Restricted Area by an ECOZONE Export or Free Trade Enterprise to be sold, stored, broken up, repacked, assembled, installed, sorted, cleaned, graded or otherwise processed, manipulated, manufacture, mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise whether directly or indirectly related in such activity, shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations of the Philippines nor to local tax ordinances .161 PO 66 Section 17. Tax Treatm ent of Merchandise 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 directly or indirectly in such activity, shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations nor to local tax ordinances, the provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding. 162 EO 226 t Article 77� Tax Treatment ofMerchandise in the Zone. 161 Italics and emphasis in the original text and supplied. 162 Italics and emphasis in the original text and suppl ied.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x-- ----- -- ------------ -- ---- ---- ----- ~- --- --- ------------- ------ ---- --- ----- x (I) Except as otherwise provided in this Code, 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 whether directly or indirectly related in such activity, shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations nor to local tax ordinances, the provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding.�63 It is clear from the foregoing provisions that supplies brought into the ECOZONE by a duly-registered PEZA export or free trade enterprise and to be sold, stored, broken up, repacked, assembled, installed,' sorted, cleaned, graded, or otherwise processed, manipulated, manufactured, mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise, whether directly or indirectly related in such activity, shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations. Relative thereto, petitioner presented the following documents to support that the fuel oil purchased from petitioner had been actually delivered to ASEZ, thereby proving that the imported fuel oil sold to PFGMI was used and consumed inside PEZA zone (for use) in the latter's PEZA-registered operations, particularly, the manufacture and production of float glass for export, viz- Particulars Exhibit No. PFGMI's Application for Permit to Bring Goods from the Customs Territory into the Zone filed with PEZA to "P-I4","P-I4-I" and , authorize delivery of fuel oil from petitioner to ASEZ "P-I4-2"�64 Supply Agreement executed between petitioner and PFGMI "P-I'5"�6s Amendment to the Supply Agreement entered into by petitioner and PFGMI "P-Il5�-I"�66 Certification from PFGMI that purchases of fuel oil made "P-I6-2"'67 by PFGMI from petitioner from July to September 2o2I were 163 Italics and emphasis in the original text and supplied. 164 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 11046), Volume Ill, pp. 1378-1383. 165 Id., pp. 1384-1412 . 166 Id., pp. 1413-1415. 16 7 Supra at note 85 .

CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------ -------- - --------------------- - - - -- ----------------------- - ----x "P-2-7''191 "P-2-3-1"193 "P-2-4-1"196 3 "P-42"2oo "P-3-1"201 "P_3_2"2o2 "p_3_3"2o4 "P-3-3-2"2o6 "P-3-4"207 "P-3-5"209 "P-3-6"210 "P-3-8"2" "P-3-i'2o3 "P-3-3-1"205 "P-3-4-1"2o8 4 "P-42"212 "P-4-1"213 "P-4-2"214 "P-4-3"216 "P-4-3-2"218 "P-4-4"219 "P-4-5"221 "P-4-6"222 "P-4-8"223 "P-4-7''"5 "P-4-3-1"217 "P-4-4-1"22o 5 "P-42"224 "P-5-1"225 "P-5-2""6 "P-5-3"228 "P-5-3-2"230 "P-5-4"231 "P-5-5"233 "P-5-6"234 "P-5-8"235 "P-5-7''"7 "P-5-3-1""9 "P-5-4-1"232 6 "P-42"236 "P-6-1"237 "P-6-2"238 "P-6-3"240 "P-6-3-2"242 "P-6-4"243 "P-6-5"245 "P-6 -6"246 "P-6-8"247 "P-6-7''239 "P-6-3-1"241 t 19 1 Id., pp. 1237-1239. 193 Id., p. 1231. 196 Id., p. 1234. 200 Page 3 of Exhibit " P-42", USB (Exhibit " P-29-2). 201 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. II 046, Ill 02 & 111 93), Volume Ill, pp. 124 1- 1242. 202 Id. , p. 124 3. 203 !d. , pp. 125 1- 1254. 204 !d., p. 1244. 205 ld ., p. 1245. 206 !d ., p. 1246. 207 !d., p. 1247. 208 !d., p. 1248. 209 !d., p. 1249. 210 !d., p. 1250. 211 !d., p. 1255. 2 12 Page 4 of Exh ibit " P-42", US B (Exh ib it "P-29-2). 213 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. I I 046, Ill 02 & 11193), Vo lume III, pp. 1256-1257. 214 !d., p. 1258. 215 !d., pp. 1266-1269. 21 6 ld.,p. l259. 21 7 !d ., p. 1260 . 2 18 ld., p. 1261. 219 !d., p. 1262. 220 Id.,p. l263. 221 Id., p. 1264. 222 Id., p. 1265 . 223 Id., p. I270. 2 24 Page 5 of Exhibit "P-42", USB (Exhibit " P-29-2). 225 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. II 046, Ill 02 & 11193), Volume III, pp. 1271 -1 272. 226 !d., p. 1273. 227 Id., pp. 1281 -1 284. 228 Id., p. 1274. 229 Id., p. 1275. 230 Id., 1276. 23 1 Id. , p. 1277. 232 Id., p. 1278. 233 ld ., p. l 279. 234 Id., p. 1280. 235 Id., p.1285. 236 Page 6 of Exh ibit " P-42", USB (Exh ibit " P-29-2). 237 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. 11 046, 11102 & 11193), Vo lume III, pp. 1286-1 287. 238 !d. , p. 1288 . 239 ld ., pp. 1296-1299. 240 Id ., p. l 289 . 24 1 ld., p. 1290. 242 Id., p. 129 1. 24 3 ld., p. 1292. 245 !d., p. 1294. 246 Id., p. 1295 . 247 !d. , p. 1300.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,11 102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleu m Corporation) v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECI SION x-- ---- - -- - ---- - - - -------- --- -- - -- - -- - - - ------- - - -- --- - - - - - - -- - --- - - - -- - -- --x 7 "P-42"248 "P-7-1"249 "P-7-2"250 "P-7-3"252 "P-7-3-2"254 "P- 6 - 4-1"""4 "P-7-6"258 � "P-7-4"255 "P-7-5"257 "P-7-8"259 "P-7-7''251 "P-7-3-1"253 "P-7-4-1"256 8 "P-42"200 "P-8-1"261 "P-8-2"262 "P-8-3"264 "P-8-3-2"266 "P-8-4"267 "P-8-s"26g "P-8-6"27� "P-8-8"'7' "P-8-7''263 "P-8-3-1"265 "P - 8- 4 -1"268 9 "P-42"272 "P-g-1"273 "P-g-2"274 "P-g-3"276 "p_9_3_2"278 "P-g-4"279 "P-g-s"281 "P-g-6"282 "P-g-8"283 "P-g-7''275 "P-g-3-1"2n "P-g-4-1"28o A comparison of the volume of fuel oil as reflected in the BLs, LPSRs and Invoices with those shown in the initial SADs for importations from December 2020 to August 2021 shows that those bear t the same total volume in metric tons of 357,440.70 MT or 372,183,297 liters of fuel oil: 244 Id., p. 1293. 248 Page 7 of Exhibit "P-42", USB (Exhibit " P-29-2). 249 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. II 046, Il l 02 & 11 193), Volume III, pp. 1301 - 1302. 250 Id., p. 1303. 251 Id., pp. 1311 - 1314. 252 Id., p. 1304. 253 Id., p. 1305. 254 Id., pp. 1306- 1307. 255 ld. , p. 1308. 256 Id. , p. 1309. 257 !d ., p. 1310. 258 Id., p. 1311. 259 !d., p. 1315. 260 Page 8 of Exhibit " P-42", USB (Exhibit " P-29-2). 261 Division Docket (CTA Case Nos. I I 046, Ill 02 & 11193), Vo lume III, pp. 13 16- 1317. 262 ld., p. 13 18. 263 Id., pp. 1327- 1330. 2 64 Id., p. l 319. 265 !d., p. 1320. 266 ld., pp. 132 1-1 322. 267 !d., p. 1323 0 268 !d., p. 1324. 269 Id. , p. 1325. 270 Id. , p. 1326. 271 Id., p. 1331. 272 Page 9 of Exhibit " P-42", USB (Exhibit "P-29-2). 273 Divis ion Docket (CTA Case Nos. II 046, 111 02 & 111 93), Volume III, pp. 1332-1333. 274 !d., p. 1334. 275 !d., pp. 1343 -1 346. 276 Id ., p.l335. 277 !d., p. 1336. 278 !d., pp. 1337-1 338. 279 !d., p. 1339. 280 ld., p. 1340. 281 !d. , p. 134 1. 282 !d. , p. 1342. 283 !d ., p. 1347.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------- - - --- - -- - --- -- ---- ----------- - -- - -------------- - ----- - -- -- -- -- x SAD No. Vessel Pe r Lite rs Amount of Excise Exhibit Tax Reference C-1022715 MUSKIE ) 8,7 98 ,717.00 "P-1-3"284 C- 648 SCF PROVIDER 48,111,405.00 P212,792,102.oo "P-2-3"285 C- 22 4 9 SI LVER O RLA 48, 23 6 , 0 0 4 . 0 0 289,988,430.00 "P-3-3"286 C-3626 SILVER LINDA 4 6 , o 6 1, 9 o o . o o 289,416,024.00 "P-4-3"287 C- 6296 YAN KUL SILVER 47.8 07, 263.0 0 276,171,400.00 "P-5-3"288 C-7849 YANKUL SILVER 38,697,102 . 0 0 286,843.578.00 "P - 6 -3"289 C-785o YANKUL SILVER 212,182,612.00 " P-7 - 3"290 C-9259 SILVER ESTH ER 9,660,940 .00 57.965,640.00 " P- 8 -3"29' C-10635 SI LVER ORLA 48 .393,183.00 290, 359,098.oo "p_9 _3 "292 46,196,783.00 277,18o,698.oo 372118J ,297�00 P2,23J,o99,782.oo ICPA Apostol-Valix matched the total volume of 372,183,297liters as indicated in the invoices, BLs and initial SADs with those of the ATRIGs and SSDTs and found no discrepancy, to wit- ATRIG Initia l SSDT � Produ ct Exhibit Control Q ua n t ity Excis e Tax Exhibit Receipt Excise Tax Paid Referen ce Release Referen ce No "P-1-5"293 "P- 2-5"295 ELTRDOIL181012 Fuel O il 38,798,717�00 p 232,7()2 , ~02.00 " P- 1 - 4 "194 Rl02C)166 p 232,792,)02.00 ELTRDOIL182329 Fuel O il 48,}31,40';.00 289,988,410.00 Rlno 2 8 g,g88,430 .0 0 " P- 3- 5"297 "P-2-4"296 "P-4-5"299 ELTRDOIL184172 Fuel Oil 48,236,004.00 28(),416,024.00 "P-1-4"298 R1669 289,416,024.00 "P - s - s "Jol ELTRDOILI8c;c;,q Fuel Oil 46,o6t,qoo.oo 276,171,400.00 "P-4-4"3oo R'56oo 276,)71,400.00 "P -6 -5 "303 ELTRDOILt8882o Fu el Oil Rq')66 "P-7-s"3o5 47.807,263-00 286,84Vi78.oo "P-'i-4"3o2 286,843�578.00 Rl6170 r ELTRDOIL19n'59 Fuel Oil 38,697,102.00 232,182,612.00 "P-6-4"304 232,182,612.00 ELTRDOILign 62 Fuel Oil g,660,940.00 '57,CJ6c;,64o.oo "P-7-4"Jo6 Rl2055 57,96s,i4o.oo 284 Supra at note 180. 285 Supra at note 192. 286 Supra at note 204. 287 Su pra at note 216. 288 Supra at note 228. 289 Supra at note 240. 29 0 Supra at note 252. 291 Supra at note 264. 292 Supra at note 276. 293 Supra at note 185. 294 Supra at note 183. 295 Supra at note 197. 296 Supra at note 195. 297 Supra at note 209. 298 Supra at note 207. 299 Supra at note 221. 300 Supra at note 2 19. 30 1 Supra at note 233. 302 Supra at note 231. 303 Supra at note 245. 304 Supra at note 243 . 305 Supra at note 257. 306 Supra at note 255.

CTA Case Nos. 11046,111 02 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECI SION x--------- --------- ------ -------- ------------ --------- --------- ---- ---- ---- -x "P-8-5"3�7 ELTRDOILI93115 Fuel Oil 48,)9),18).00 290.359,098.oo "P-8-4"Jos RI4223 290,)59,098.00 "P-9-5"309 ELTRDOILI94770 Fuel Oil 46,196,78).00 277,180,698.oo "P-9-4"310 RI6305 277,18o,698.oo 372�18),297�00 P2,23310991782.00 P2,233,099,782..oo Due to an increase of 353,549 liters in the fuel oil received by petitioner, the final excise taxes it paid amounted to P2,235,22I,o76.oo, as supported by the following final SADs and final SSDTs - Final Adjusted SAD Final Adjusted SSDT . Seq Exhibit Amount of Excise Receipt No. Ref Tax Paid 1 SAD No. Volume in Liters Exhibit Ref No Excise Tax Paid 2 "P-1-3-1"311 C-1022.715 38.798,717-00 3 C-648 48,675,667.oo P232,792,302.oo UP-1-4-t "Jil R2407 P232,792,302 .oo 4� "P-2-3-1"3�3 C-2249 48,236,004.00 5 "P-3-3-1"3�5 C-3626 46,065,21).00 292,054,002.00 "P-2-4-1"3'4 R4101 292,054,002 .0 0 6 "P-4-3-1"317 C-6296 47.807,26).00 289.416,024.00 "P-3-4-1"3'6 R8709 289,416,024.00 "P-5-J-1"3�9 C-7849_ 38,697,102.00 7 "P-6-3-1"3>1 C-785o g,666,914.00 276,391,278.oo "P-4-4-1"318 R9881 276.)91,278.oo 8 "P-7-3-1"3�3 C- 9 2 5 9 48,)9),18).00 "P-8-3-1"3�5 C-10635 46,196.783.00 286,843,578.oo "P-5-4-1"J>o R12556 286,843,578.oo ~ "P-9-3-1"3�7 372, 5 ) 6 ,8 4 6 . 0 0 232,182,612.00 "P-6-4-1"3� R16370 2)2,182,612.00 s8,o01,484.00 "P-7-4-1"3�4 R16368 58�,oo1,484 .oo 290.359,098.oo "P-8-4-1"3>6 R18372 290.359,098.oo 277,18o,698.oo "P-g-4-l"J>S R1go64 277,18o,698.oo P 2 ,235,221, o 7 6 . o o P2,2) 5,221,o76.oo The importation, as well as the withdrawals of fuel oil, are recorded and summarized in the ORBs, which are jointly signed by an authorized representative of Shell and the Revenue Officer on Premises . . r (ROOP). The ORB indicates the receipts and removals of fuel oil fort . 307 Supra at note 269. 308 Supra at note 267. 309 Supra at note 281. 3 10 Supra at note 279. 31 1 Supra at note 181. 312 Supra at note 184. 313 Supra at note 193. 314 Supra at note 196. 315 Supra at note 205 . 316 Supra at note 208. 317 Supra at note 2 17. 3IS Supra at note 220. 319 Supra at note 229. no Supra at note 232. 321 Supra at note 241. m Supra at note 244. 323 Supra at note 253. 324 Supra at note 256. 32S Supra at note 265 . 326 Supra at note 268. m Supra at note 277. 328 Supra at note 280.

CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue � DECISION x---- - - -- --------------------------------------- -- - - ------------------- - ---- x 718152908 20,000.00 "P-62" p.32 30,000.00 "P-40" pp.n-12 {10,000.00) Declared volu me per PEZA Form No. 8105 is higher. 718192312 30,000.00 "P-62" P-41 20,000.00 "P-4o" pp.n-14 10,000.00 Declared volume per PEZA Form No. 8105 is lower. 718227050 20,000.00 "P-62" P-45 30,000.00 "P-4o" pp.15-16 (10,000.00) Declared volume � per PEZA Form No. 8105 is h igh er. 718262475 20,000.00 "P-62" p.51 30,000.00 "P-4o" pp.17-18 (10,000.00) Declared volume per PEZA "P-62" p.c;1 20,000 .00 Form No. 8105 is higher. 718262487 30,000.00 "P-4o" pp.17-18 10,000.00 Declared volume per PEZA Form No. 8105 is lower. 718262')13 20,000.00 "P-62" p .c;6 30,000.00 "P-4o" pp.17-18 {10,000.00) Declared volume per PEZA. Form No. 8105 is higher. 718893152 30,000.00 "P-62" p.go 20,000.00 "P-4o" pp.31-32 10,000.00 Declared volume per PEZA Form No. 8105 is lower. r 718893203 20,000.00 "P-62" P�93 30,000 .00 "P-4o" pp.31-32 (10,000 .00) Declared volume per PEZA Form No . 8105 is higher. � 718992930 20,000.00 "P-62" p.n8 30,000.00 "P-4o" PP �3S�36 (10,000.00) Declared volume per PEZA Fo rm No. 8105 is higher. 7198so867 30,000.00 "P-62" p.213 - None 30,000 .00 No supporting PEZA Form No. 810c; . 720004631 20,000.00 - "P-62" p.239 No ne 20,000.00 No supporting PEZA Form No. 20,000.00 8105. � "P-62" p.254 - No ne 20,000.00 No supporting PEZA Form No. 810'). 720077206 From the foregoing, deliveries of fuel oil made to PFGMI, without, the supporting PEZA Form No. 8105 totaling to 7o,ooo liters, should not form part of the refund claim. Likewise, those deliveries with lower volume indicated in the PEZA Form No. 8105 compared to the volume indicated per BDNs should also not be part of the refund claim. Petitioner also presented, among others, the following documentary evidence, proving the sales and delivery of fuel oil to PFGMI and the subsequent billing and collection of said fuel oil, net of excise tax- Document Exhibit Reference 1 Sales Invoice (SI) "P-6s"33s 2 ZF2 Display "P-66"339 3 Proof of payments "P-67''340 4 Liquidation report (LR) "P-64"34� 338 Id. 339 Id . 340 Id. 341 Id.

f CTA Case Nos. 11046, 11102 and 11193 Shell Pilipinas Corporation (formerly Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x SO ORDERED. � ~~ JEAN MA A. BACORRO-VILLENA A sociate Justice I CONCUR: LAN9tlvro Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest 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. ociate Justice Specialist Division Acting Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Special 1st Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, 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. ~- ~ )...._____ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding 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.