BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC., CTA CASE NO. 11122 Petitioner, Nlembers: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ & Chaitperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES,]]. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, ~'W frrl Respondent. "' =-J~ - x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~4-, RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ.: For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 27 June 2025) of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) flied on July 28, 2025, with the taxpayer's Comment (Re: Motion for Reconsideration datedJune 24, 2025) filed on October 13, 2025. On June 27, 2025, the Court issued a decision, which granted the taxpayer's refund claim of erroneously assessed and wrongfully collected excise tax on the importation of twelve (12) pallets containing 125,400 boxes of Saridon TANL BLI 10 PH. The CIR's motion asks the Court to reconsider the decision on the grounds that the taxpayer is not entitled to the refund of the allegedly erroneously paid excise tax of PhP37,620,000 and that the claims for refund of excise tax is authorized only by Section 130(D) of the Tax Code, as amended. The taxpayer opposes the motion on the grounds that: the CIR failed to raise any new or substantial reason to warrant reconsideration as the arguments therein are a verbatim repetition of what was previously stated in the Answer; the motion is proforma since it does not specify the findings in the assailed decision that are unsupported by evidence or are contrary to law; and, the Court correctly ruled that the collection of excise tax was erroneous and illegal based on Sections r 204(C) and 229 of the Tax Code.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11122 The motion is DENIED. Ordinarily, when the arguments and issues advanced in a party's motion for reconsideration are mere rehash and repetition of arguments previously raised, which have been sufficiently considered and addressed by the court in the assailed decision, there is JlO need to dismss the same arguments again when the Com1 resolves the motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration which does not specify the findings and conclusions of the Court that arc allegedly contrary to law or not supported by evidence, or which fails to substantiate the alleged error of the Court, or which merely alleges that the decision in question was contrary to law, may be denied for being pro forma. 1 ACCORDINGLY, in light of the foregoing considerations, the CIR's Niotionfor Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 27 June 2025) is DENIED for lack of ment. SO ORDERED. ~.~ 7 ---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: MARIA ROWE c~!~~s 1 Macapaga/-Arroyo v. People, G.R. Nos. 220598 & 220953, April18, 2017 (Supreme Court En Bane Resolution); Teodu/o M. Coqui//a v. The Hon. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002; Marikina Valley Development Corporation v. Flojo, G.R. No. 110801 December 8, 1995 (Supreme Court En Bane)