CTA Case No. 3547 (Decision)

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ��, PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 3547 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X ---------------------- X DE C I I 0N � Petitioner seeks to recover 25% of the specific tqxes paid on various oils and fuels actually used in its mining operations pursuant to the provision of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1435 in relation to Sections 153 and 156 (formerly Sections 142 and 145, respectively> of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended. Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly licensed to operate its mining operation with a Mining License Agreement duly �entered into with the Ministry of Natural Resources. 645

- DE C I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 -2- ��, In order to operate its mining concession, petitioner uses re�ined and manu�actured mineral oils, motor �uels and diesel �uel oils in its mining operation. From July 1, 1980 to December 31, 1981, petitioner paid the corresponding speci�ic taxes on its purchases o� diesel �uel oils, re�ined and manu�actured mineral oils, motor �uels �rom Pilipinas Shell, Mobil Oil Phils. , and Petron Phils. By virtue o� the provision o� Section 5 o� Republic Act No. 1435 [An Act To Provide Neans For Increasing The Highway Special Fund] and the decision . o� the Supreme Court in the case o� Insular Lumber Co. v. Court. of Tax .Appea.ls, G.R. No. L-31057, .11ay 29, 1981 <104 SCRA 710>, petitioner invoked entitlement to the 25Y. partial re�und on the speci�ic taxes paid on manu�actured miner al oils and �uels actually used in its mining A claim �or re�und [Exh. BJ, dated October 18, 1982 , was �iled on October 22, 1982 with the respondent's o��ice in the total amount o� F623,169.30, computed as �allows: 646

- DE C I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 -3- PHILEX MINING CORPORATION Jul.y 1980 - Dece�ber 1981 . ._;..._ .) �! Yolu11e Product Specific 251 (Liters) Cost Tax Refund Diesel 3, 731,000 p 10,548,745.00 p 652, 925. ()() p 163,231.25 Gasoline Reg. 199,000 953,373.00 179,100.00 44,775.00 70,000 348,876.00 70,000.00 17,500. 00 Gasoline Extra 391,596.80 1,957,984 7, 330,721.00 . 1, 566, 387. 20 6, 066. 25 Oils &Lubricants 48,530 314,843.00 24,265.00 Grease TOTAL: p 19, 496, 558. ()() p 2,492,677.20 ' , 623, 169.30 --------------- -------------- ------------ To support its claim �or re�und, petitioner presented the a��idavits o� its President [Exh. B-1J, Purchasing Manager [Exh. B-2J, Chie� Accountant [Exh. B-3] and two other disinterested persons: two duly licensed mining corporation [Exhs. B- 4 and B- 5J, all attesting that �or the period July 1980 to December 1981 petitioner used in its mining operations re�ined and manu�actured mineral oils, motor �uels and diesel �uel oil costing ~19,496,558.00. Without waiting �or respondent's decision on the matter, petitioner �~led a petition �or review on November 16, 1982, in order to toll the running o� the two - year prescrip~ive period within which to judicially claim a re�und under Section 230 (�ormerly 292) o� the National Internal Revenue 647

- DEC I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 4- ~ Petitioner prayed for an order requiring Code. �respondent to pay 20Y. interest per annum, in �1 addition to its claim for refund, for his alleged arbitrary refusal to refund the instant claim. Petitioner likewise prayed for the costs of suit. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1435 provides: SECTION 5. The proceeds of the additional tax on manufactured oils �' shall accrue to the road and ,bridge funds of the political subdivision for whose benefit the tax is collected: Provided, however, That whenever any oils mentioned above are used by miners or forest concessionaires in their operations, twenty-five per centum of the specific tax paid thereon shall be refunded by the Collector of Internal Revenue upon submission of proof of actual use of oils and under similar conditions enumerated in sub-paragraphs one and two of section one hereof, amending section one hundred forty-two of the Internal Revenue Code: Provided further, That no new road shall be construed unless the routes or location thereof shall have been approved by the Commissioner of Public Highways after a determination that such road can be made part of an integral and articulated route in the Philippine Highway System, as required in section twenty - six of the Philippine Highway Act of 1953. " In the cases of Insu1ar Luaber Co�pany v. Court of Tax Appea1s and of Interna1 Revenue, G.R. Ho. L- 31057, nay 29, 1981 <supra) and Commissioner of Interna1 Revenue v. Co ur t of Ta x Appeals and Insular Lumber 648

- DEC I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 -5- Company, G.R. No. L - 31137, ~ay 29, 1981 <104 SCRA 710), the Supreme Court held that the proviso o� �l Section 5 o� Republic Act No. 1435 is in e��ect a partial exemption �rom the imposed increased speci�ic tax on manufactured oils. Furthermore, Section 5 does not deviate from the general subject o� said law, that is, to inc rease the Highway Special Fund. Petitioner relied on the above-mentioned decision of the Supreme Court as well as the particular provision of Sec tion 5 o� Republic Act No. 1435 as bases �or claiming a refund. The issues brought be�ore this Court are: 1. Whether or not the privilege under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1435 had been repealed by Presidential Decree No. 231 <Enactment o� the Local Tax Code>, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 426 and by Presidential Decree Nos. 1158 and 1158- A <Consolidating and Codi�ying all Internal Revenue Laws> particularly Section 342 o� the National Internal Revenue Code o� 1977; and 2. Granting arguendo that the pr ivilege under Section 5 o� Republic Act No. has not been r epealed, ~hether or not petitioner is entitled to the refund claimed absent any allegation o� payment o� the additional tax imposed by the municipal boards � or councils as prescr ibed by Section 4 o� Republic Act No. 143 5. 649

- DECI S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 -6- Taking the �irst iss ue, respondent stressed that the � subsequent enactment o� various .j �l Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders, increasing the rate o� speci�ic taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code, impliedly revoked the partial re�und privilege under Section 5 o� Republic Act No. 1435. He stressed that the very purp os e why the government increased the rates o� speci�ic taxes is to provide additional revenues to accelerate economic development in the country. The grant o� partial re�und would there�ore run counter to the very purpose �or which the speci�ic tax rates were increased. We disagree with the respondent. In the case o� Coa�issioner of Interna1 Revenue v. At1as Conso1idated /lining and Deve1opaent Corporation, et.a1., G.R. No. 93631, November 12, 1990. the Supreme Court, in a Resolution by the Th i rd Divi sion, had the occasion to rule that "the purpose �or the increase in the rate o� tax cannot in anyway negate the policy behi nd the grant o� partial re�und. The Court sees .�' no inc onsistency between the increase in speci�ic tax r a tes and the retention o� the re�und pr i v i l ege . I n �act, with the increased� s peci�ic 600

- DEC I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 7 tax rates, the grant of partial refund to mining at1d lumbet~ c oncessionaires ,is made more impey�ative �l considering that they seldom use the highways, the cons t t~ uct ion financed by specific taxes." Going ovet~ the second iss�.te, t~e s pond ent ' argued that petitioner is entitled to a refund only if the additional specific taxes imposed by the municipalities and cities concerned have been paid. He pointed that where there is no StiCh imposing an additional specific tax to miners and forest concessionaires, no refund could be availed of as perceived from a reading of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Republic Act 1435. We find appropriate the following comments of the Supreme Court in the case of Co��issioner of Internal Revenue v. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Develop�ent Corp., et. al., <supra). of the legislative pt~oceedings leading to the enactment of RA 1435 shows that mining and lumber concessionaires were granted of specific taxes because the ci. nd f ue l they consume are mo stly used wi t h in the r own co mpo unds and roads. RA 1435 gave th es �: c o11-:: .� ss io n ;:d.�,.-��es Y' e lief, in the fot~ m of a tax 65 1

- DE C I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 -8- .., refund, since their trucks and vehicles seldom ply :.~ ��, j the national highways, the construction o� which is �l �unded by the speci�ic tax collected by the . national government. There is there�ore no � rationale in conditioning the . grant o� re�und on the payment o� these mining and lumber concessionaires o� any additional local tax. " And in the more recent case o� Coaaissioner of Interna1 Revenue v. Rio Tuba Nicke1 nining Corporation and Court of Tax Appea1s, G. R. Nos. 83583-84. September 30, 1991 <202 SCRA 137), the Supreme Court Third Division held: "<t>o our mind, the proviso in Section .5 standing above is enough basis for the grant of refund xxx. In fact, the entire proviso of Section 5 does not even make any reference to Section 4 which empowers municipalities and cities to impose the additional tax on oils . sold or distributed within their territorial jurisdiction. What is clear therein is that the Revenue Commissioner shall refund 25X of the specific tax whenever any oils mentioned above r e used b~ miners or forest concessiona i r es in t hei r oe r a t i ons and the procedure fo r r e f nd is co mp l iec with . ., 652

�~ -DEC IS I � O N - �I C.T.A. Case No. 3547 -9- Finding for the petitioner, the only thing left to be determined by this Court is the amount of specific taxes to be refunded by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in favor of petitioner. Petitioner claims that it is entitled to the 25X partial refund of specific taxes paid from its purchases of refined and manufactured fuel oils, diesel fuel oils and lubricating oils from July 1, 1980 to December 31, 1981 in the total amount of ~623,169.30. However, in i t s Memorandum, petitioner included in its claim for refund purchases of fuels from July 1980 to April 1982. A table showing purchases of Diesel, Regular Gasoline and Industrial Fuel from July 1980 to April 1982 was presented by pe titioner. The amount now being claimed as 25X r e fund on specific taxes paid is ~1,728,542.78 instead of the original ~623,169.30. Respondent argued that specific taxes paid prior to November 16, 1980 had already prescribed. The Tax Code provides for the judicial remedy of filing a claim for refund within a period of two <2 > y e ars from the date of payment of the tax p ur s uaD� t o t he p r o vis io of Section 230 <f ormerly Sec tion 29 2>. 653

- DEC I S I 0 N - C.T.A. Case No. 3547 -- 10 �-- .�, Sectio n j.,:�j-:�.c..:J� of the Tax Code insofar~ as per�- t in ent provides that specific taxes on locally levied und et~ Sections 155 and 156 of this title, excegt paid within fifteen (15) days from the date of removal thet' eof f r~ o m t h e p l a c e o f p r�' o d u c t i o n � " It is therefore evident that the manufacturer of petroleum products has up to 15 days date of its removal within which to pay the specific taxes on locally manu fact ttt'ed pett~oleu m products. As an exception , manu fact Ut' ers of 1 ubt' icat i ng oils and gr--ease have to pay the specific tax collecte d from the purchaser on the r date of their removal from the place of production. P e t i t i o n e r�' ptJr'chased both manu fact Ut' ed petroleum products and lubricating oils and grease. Thus, with respect to it s purchases of lubt'icat ing 0 i 1 s, the specific taxes paid thereon deemed paid at the date of its removal. The claim fot' r--efund of the 25':/. specific taxes paid on oils a 1d l 4 bric ants purchased and de li ver e d pt' i Ot' t o N vem brn' l b , 1. 9E! O had indeed pr-- es c t 'i b e d . [Exhs. AD t c> AP, B 1~1 t o BU , D t o Y ; s e ~? f o 1 d r' 7, 2 r' e :;, p e r� t j v P l y J � 654

- DECI S I 0 N - C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 11 - All claims not included in the claim for ~efund filed in the administrative level <BIR> cannot be the subject of the present appeal. Thus, purchases of petroleum products and lubricants made after December 31, 1981, not being included in the claim for refund filed with the respondent's office, cannot be considered by this Court for the same was not included in its claim for refund with the BIR nor of this petition for review. The petition calls for the refund of 25Y. of the specific taxes paid on petitioner's purchases of manufactured oils and fuels from July 1, 1980 to December 31, 1981 and not purchases of fuels from July 1, 1980 to April 1982, as prayed for in the Memorandum. Following the provision of Section 135 of the Tax Code, the specific taxes paid on the rest of the petroleum products purchased by petitioner falls due on the 15th day following the date of its removal. Therefore, all shipments of petroleum products, except oils and lubricants, purchased by petiti oner 15 days piior to November 16, 1980 or o n No ve mber ~ 1980 are paid on N v e b�, 16, 19 80 whi ch is well withi n t h e t wo-year pre c 1int ive per iod as prescribed und r Secti on 230 655

- DEC I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 -� 12 �- .�, of the National Internal Revenue Code. The specific taxes collected from petition e~~ on its purchases of petroleum products other than oils on Novembe~~ 1, 1'380 sho uld have been paid within 15 days the date of its on Novembe~~ 16, 1'380. It follows that on November' 15, a l l put~chases of locally manufactured petroleum products, except 0 i 1 s' on Nove mb.et~ 1' 1'380 were deemed paid. Thus, all of fuels priot~ to November' 1, 1'380 have pt' e scr�' i bed. It should be not eel that in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation and Court of Tax Appeals, supra., the Supreme Court' s Third Division granted Rio Tuba's Motion for Reco n sideration of its de c ision dated September~ 30 , 1 r::3 '31. The Supr~ eme in it s Resolution, dated March arrived at the following conclusion, to wit: " S i n c e t h e p r�' i vat e t ' e s pond en t ' s clai m for refund covers sp�cific t axes p a i d f rom 1980 t~ July 1~83 the n we f in d ! h a t the private r~spon de nt i s f~t itl~d to a refund. �It sHoul d be ma de � a r~ ,. h ovH:> ver~, that fHo l: uba i !; �� o t ~,ti t l ed t o t he whole a~ou ri t i t cl 2, ms a''� t"'e fiJn d. 656

- D .E C I S I 0 N - C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 13 - The specific tax es on oils which Ri o Tuba paid fo r the afo r ~said period were no longer based on the rates specified by Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. No. 143 5 but on the increased rates mandated under Sections 153 and 156 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. We note, however, that the latter law does not specifically provide for a refund to these mining and lumber companies of specific taxes paid on manufactured and diesel fuel oils. In Insular Lumber Co. v. Court of Tax Appeals, <104 SCRA 710 [19811>, the Court held that the authorized partial refund under Section 5 of R.A. No. 1435 partakes of the nature of a tax exemption and therefore cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. Since the grant of refund privilege must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, the basis for the refund shall be amounts deemed paid under Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. No. 1435. ACCORDINGLY, the decision in G.R. Nos. 83583 - 84 is hereby MODIFIED. The private respondent's CLAIM for REFUND is GRANTED, computed on the basis of the amounts deemed paid under Sections _1 and 2 of R.A. No. 1435, without interest. SO ORDERED. " The aforesaid ruling was further discussed by the High Court in response to Rio Tuba's Motion for Clarification which is actually a second Motion for Reconsideration. In its Resolution dat ed June 15, 1992, the following comments were e lucida~ ed: 657

- DECI S I 0N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 14 - .�, "Rio Tuba's contention that the r e�und should be based on the rates e��ective at the time the speci�ic tax was paid is without merit. Section 1 o� RA 1435 amended Section 142 o� the National Internal Revenue Code providing �or increased rates on speci�ic taxes. Section 142 o� the NIRC incorporated the re�und privilege on speci�ic taxes paid on manu�actured oils which are used in agriculture and aviation. Section 5 o� RA 1435 provided �or a re�und privilege on speci�ic taxes on manu�actured oils paid by miners or �orest concessionaires. There is a di��erence in the re�und privileges o� . those engaged in agriculture and aviation on one hand, and miners or �orest c oncessionaires on the other. Since the re�und privilege o� the �ormer is incorporated in Section 142, then upon any amendment o� Section 142 increasing the tax rates, the basis �or the re�und will accordingly be adjusted. Signi�icantly, the re�und privilege granted to miners or �orest conces sionaires is not incorporated in Section 142 but is �ound in Section 5 o� RA 1435. There is thus an intent on the part o� the legislature to use the speci�ic tax rates provided in Section 1 as the sole basis �or re�und, notwithstanding �uture rate increases. All the Sections a� RA 1435 must be read as a whole. In the absence o� any express provision o� law, the re�und privilege granted to miners and �orest concessionaires in Section 5 must be c onstrued as based on the speci�ic tax ra tes provided in pection 1. Re garding the Commissioner o� Intern-1 Revenue's <CIR's) qontention i n h is mo t i on �or reconsideration th at RA 1 4 3 5 h ad bec o me an anachronism way a c k in 1 973 wh en t he legislature pr ov i d e d �or inc r eas ed speci�ic tax rat e~ o n 658

- DE C I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 15 - ��, manu�actured oils, said position that a partial re�und would be inconsistent with the purpose o� the subsequent laws increasing speci�ic tax rates is without mer it. The re�und privilege is not inconsistent with the increase in speci�ic tax rates since the re�und is based only on the original rates provided in Section 1 o� RA 1435. These subsequent laws did not, there�ore, expressly or impliedly, repeat the re�und privilege. XXX XXX XXX The Court, a�ter examining the invoices o��ered by petitioner as evidence, arrived at the �allowing computation as �allows: Q_ !! ~ !! I !. I '� !. !! k !. I g R ~ Oil and Extra Regular Diesel Lubricants Gasoline Gasoline Fuel Oil Grease Folder 11 1,419,300 44,648 28,000 82,000 352,000 200 . 3,220 9,000 33,000 54,000 Folder 12 472,000 93,828 39,000 80,000 708,000 200 14,200 2,300 Folder 13 1,449,000 148,636 11,000 76,960 Folder 14 31,000 133,550 13,020 Folder 15 209,000 -- ------ 16,000 84,000 21,410 4,920 Folder 16 5,000 528,062 Folder 18 ======== Folder 19 -- ---- ---- ---- ----- T 0 T AI. 3,585,300 87,000 211,000 1,198,000 29,030 ========= ------- ------- --------- ------ Se e Annex "A" �or detailed c om put at ion o� q a nt' ty . ()59

- DEC I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 16 - Petitioner's exhibits particularly �ound in Folder #7 ~as not included in the computation on the ground that it has already prescribed. The Resolution oi the Supreme Court dated March 25, 1992 iD the Rio Tuba case <supra) stated that the claim Ior re�und oi speciiic taxes should be computed on the basis o� the amounts deemed paid under Sections 1 and 2 oi R.A. No. 1435, without interest. Sections 1 and 2 OI R.A. No. 1435 inso�ar as pertinent provides. "SECTION 1. Section one hundred and Iorty - two oi the National Inter nal Revenue Code, as amended, is �urther amended to r ead as Iollows: "SEC. 142. Specific Tax on manufactured oi1s and other fue1s On reiined and manu�actured mineral oils and motor �uels, there shall be collected the �allowing taxes: (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) Lubricating oils, per liter OI volume capacity, seven centavos; (c) Naptha, gasoli ne , and all other similar products o�� distillation, per liter o i v o l u me capacity, ei gh t centa v os; and (d ) XXX XXX X XX 66 0

- DEC I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 17 - "SEC. 2. Section one hundred and forty - five of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is further amended to read as fallows: SEC. 145 Specific Tax on Diese1 Fue1 oi1. On fuel ail, commerc ially known as diesel fuel ail, and an all si milar fuel ails, h aving ma re or less the same generating power, there shall be collected , per metric tan, one peso. " With respect to the amount refundable an purchases of diesel and industrial fuel, bath parties agreed and arrived at a formula, in c onverting liters of diesel and industrial fuel to metric tans. The base far computing the amount refundable far specific taxes paid an diesel and industrial fuel should be that as prescribed in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1435. The formula to convert liters to metric tans of diesel and industrial fuel as agreed upon by the parties is: No.af liters x Specific Gravity Metric Ton 1,000 It was further agreed that the specific gravity of diesel is 0.8429. While the specific gravity of industrial fuel is 0.9439. 661

- DEC I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - :I.B - .�, Thus, the total number of liters of diesel . ,\ ... subject �to t�' efund is 3,585,300 equivalent to 3,022.04937 metri c tons , computed as follows: 3,585,300 liters of diesel x 0.8429 = 3,~04937 Metric Tons of Diesel 1,000 and the total number of liters of industrial fuel subject to refund is 1,198,000 equivalent to 1,130.7922 met ric tons , cbmputed as follows: 1,198,000 liters of industrial fuel x 0.~39 = 1,130.7922 Metric Tons of Ind. Fu~l 1,000 After having converted the liters of diesel and indu strial fuel into metric tons, the Court can now compute the amount to which petitioner is entitled to be refunded on the specific taxes paid from the u se of petroleum products ptn~ cha sed fat~ the pet'iod covet�' ing ,Jt..\.ly 1, 1980 to Decembet~ 31, 1981. Petitioner is therefore entitled to the amotJn t of ~16,747.36 co mputed by the Court, as 662

- DE C I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 19 - ��, Refundable Aaount of 25% Specific Taxes On Regular Gasoline Oils l lubricants, Diesel and Industrial fuel Oil Purchased fro� July 1, 1980 to Dec. 31, 1981 Per Court's Coaputation based on Sees. !. and~ of RA 1435 Quantity Specific Aaount Paid Tax Rate p 3,022.00 Diesel 3,022 IH 1. 00/KT 36,964.34 6,960.00 Oils and lubricants 528, 062 Lts. 0.07/lt ' 16,880.00 1, 131.00 Extra Gasoline 87,000 lts. 0.08/lt 2,032.10 p 66,989.44 Regular Gasoline 211, 000 lts. 0.08/lt 25% Fuel Oils 1,131 KT 1. 00/KT p 16,747.36 ============ Grease 29,030 lts. 0.07/lt T0 T Al Percentage refundable under Sec. 5 of RA 1435 AIIOUHT REFUNDABLE As regards the 201. interest per annum being claimed by petitioner, the rule is that no interest on refund of tax can be awarded unless authorized by law or the collection of the tax was attended by arbitrarine ss. [Go11ector v. Prieto, 122 PhiL 907; Commissioner v. Asturias Sugar Gentra1, 2 SCRA 1140; Commissioner of Interna1 Revenue v. American Rubber Go., 18 SCRA 842; At1as Ferti1izer Corporation v. Commissioner of Interna1 ' 663

- DEC I S I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 20 - Rev~nue, 100 SCRA 556; She11 Phi1ippines, Inc. v. Centra1 Bank of the Phi1ippines, 162 SCRA 628. l An . �" action is not arbitrary when exercised honestly and upon due consideration where there is room for two opinions, however much it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion was reached. [F. B. 11oreno, Phi1ippine Lar Dictionary <3rd ed. >, p. 69, citing Imperia1 Deve.lopment Corporation v. Anover, 08473- AP, August 23, 1979.] Arbitrariness presupposes inexcusable or obstinate disregard of legal provisions. [Victorias 11i.11ing Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Interna1 Revenue, et.a1., 19 SCRA 430. ] None of the exceptions are present in the case at bar. Respondent's decision denying petitioner~s claim for for refund was based on an honest interpretation of law. We, therefore see no reason why petitioner should be entitled td the payment of interest. Moreover, the Supreme Court held in the Rio Tuba case that no interest shall be charged in computing th~ 25% refund on specific taxes paid. [See Supreme Court Resolution dated Ma r ch 25, 9 92 . ] ln t h e s a me manner, petitioner' s p ra y r for ost of s u i t c a nnot be awarded. I t i s an 664

- DEC I 5 I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 .. rule - 21 - not be that the government shall elementary . liable �or basts of suits unless otherwise provided �~ by law. �Section 1, Ru1e 142, Revised Ru1es ox Court; Co11ector ox Interna1 Revenue v. Convention ox Phi1ippine Baptist Churches and the Court ox Tax Appea1s, 2 SCRA 10.1 WHEREFORE, the respondent, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE is hereby ordered to REFUND in favor of petitioner, PHILEX MINING CORP., the sum of ~16,747.36 without interest, equivalent to 25X partial refund of specific taxes paid on its purchases of gasoline, oils and lubricants, diesel and fuel oils pursuant to the provision of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1435, in relation to Section 14 2 (b) and <c > of the National Internal Revenue Code and Section 145 as prescribed under Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. 1435. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, 4 August 1994. 66 5

- DE C I 5 I 0 N- C.T.A. Case No. 3547 - 22 - .-, WE CONCUR: res,iding Ju;ne ~ RAMON rf~:"!�D:E -V!.~~ Associate Ju CERTIFICATION L I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation between the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. ~Q.-~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals 668