CTA Case No. 3054 (Decision)

�.~ P IJ'B t.l C. Or 1111� HULII!"PlNJ!!~ COUR OF TAX APPEA1.JJ f'HU.W ~ USIPHIL , INC 8, Peti t .ioner , - ve r su s - C . T . A. CASE NO. 3 0 5 4 COMMI SSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent.� :x;. - - - - - - ---- x, US I PHIL 1 INC . 1 Petit.ioner , - ve:rsus - C .T.A . CASE NO . 3084 THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t. X - - .- - - - X. DEC I S I 0 N These are t wo ( 2 ) petitions for r eview (CTA �l Case:s Nos. 3054 andt 3084) file�d b_y petitione'r, Usiphi l, Inc., agai nst respondent Commissioner of I nte rnal Revenue se:e:k i ng. the refund of the amounts. of il4.4,4.5,1.48 and il9 1:1,067.38 a s 7% manufactu r er ' s: s a l e:s . taxes i t . pa id: fmr the last:. qua rte�r of 1977, and for the years 1 978 and 1979, r.espec:ti ve1y . The: facts and i ss u es. be i ng1 th e S�a me , t hese cas.e�s . we:re: join t1y heard by the Coui:�t.. 3){1- Pr

-- DECISION - CTA CASES NOSe 3054 �& 3 U84 - 2- Peti tioner is a domestic corporation org,aniz.ed and existing under. and by v irtue of. the: l aws o f the Republic ox. the~ Philipp i nes . It has i ts prin- cipal place o f business at Buendia Avenue , Makati , Metro Manila . According t o the records (pp . 58 - 59 , CTA r ec .) _of. these cases , the facts as shown therein are as f ollows: "The petiti oner , f or the l as ~ quarter. of 1977 and for the years 1978 and 1979, had f.iled on a quart erly basis, Business {Percentage ) Tax Returns. In- cluded in these business tax r e t urns are the manufacturer �s pe rce n ta g;e t axes. XXX XXX XXX t he petitioner p aid t he amounts due thereunder , i ncluding manufacturer ' s percen tage taxes . "The manufacturer ' s taxes that. the petitioner. paid for the last. quartex: of 1 977 and. for the years 1978 and 1979 pertain to the sales of the r econditioned component. assemblies of tractors under its Parts Exchange Service Program . The petitione r's Parts Exchange Service Program {PES Prog ram) is a program supporti ng) the sales of cater.pillar t .r actors , mach ineries and heavy equipment wh ich are being i mpo rted from the u . s. and J apan i n pursuit of its trading business. Similarly, brand new replacement parts for these tractors, heavy mach i neries and equipment are bei ng i mported from the u.s.A . and Si ng.apor e. Aside from making available brand new r eplacement parts, peti tioner pursu i ng and implementing its PES Progr am , also sells reconditi9ned component assemblies which it. had repaired. " On accoun t o f the above stated activi t ies , petitioner paid the amount of ~4 4,4 8 1. 48 as 3<6"1-13

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS~ 3054 "& 3084 - 3- manufacturer's sales tax for the last qua rter of 19 77 as evide nced by Reve nue Tax Receip t No . 17 38 63 53 i ssued by the Central Bank of the Philippine s dated Janua ry 12, 1978. However , at a l ater date, upon adv ice of its ext ernal audi t.or, it filed with the Comm issioner o f I nterna l Re ve nue a cl a i m for r efund o r tax cred it f or said amount paid as manufacturer' s sales tax on the ground that pe titioner is not a manu f actur er and , therefore, is not subject. or liable to the manu facturer 's s ales tax for the s a id period. Subsequently, it filed another claim for refund or tax c re d i t with re spondent Comm issionex of I nternal Revenue in the amount of P913,067.38 , r eprese n ti ng manufactu rer 's sales t ax for the ye a rs 1978 and 1979 on the s i milar ground that petitioner is not a manu facturer and is no t subject to manu - facturer's sales t ax. However, inasmuch as no action wa s t aken by respondent on bo th claims, petitione r filed the aforesaid pe titions for review . The on ly i ssue invo lved in both cases is whether or not under t he f acts of these cases petitioner is a manufacturer, in contemplat ion of Section 187 (x) of. the National Internal Revenue Code, when it r epair s, re builds, and/or assembles component

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 305�4 ' & 3084 - 4- as-semblies of ti:1ractors and heavy equipme nt. acquire~d I unde r its PES Program and se~lls the s.ame to its. customers~ In the affirmative , peti tione�r is legally liable for the manufacturer's s.ales ta~ it. had paid dur.ing the periods in question. If not, pe~ t.i tioner i s not l iable there~to and i t .s claim for the tax refund or credit of the manu- facturer's sales tax paid is legally in order. In respondent. Commissioner 's answers. to the: petitions for. review in these two (2) _cases., he~ had strongly anchored his position on the: pro'$isions of said Section 1 8 7 (x) .of the Tax CoQ.e, which he asserted, placed pe~ ti tioner in the: position of a manufac-turer subject. to manufacturer � s. sale�s, tax.. So that, therefore, as such manufacturer, it is 1 iable to the manu fac tur e�r' s sales taxes which i t paid to the gover.:nment . Section ;J-87 (x.) of the National Internal Revenue Code prov ides as follows: "Manufacturer include:s every pe�rson who by physical or chemical process alters. the exterior texture or form or inner substance of any raw material or. manu- factur ed or. partially manufactured pro- duct in such a manner. as to prepare it for a special u~e or uses to wh ich it could not h a ve~ be:en put in its or ig,inal condition, or w.ho by such process alters. the qualit.y of any such raw mate:rial , or manufactured or partially manufactured product as to reduce it to marketable 3?t ~ D

II I I DECISION - CTA CASES NOS. 3054 �& 3 08 4 - 5- shape or pr.epa.re it. for any uses of i ndustry, or who by a ny such process I combines a n y such lt':aw material or manu factur ed. ox:: partially manufac- tured, products. with other materials or products of the~ same or of dif- ferent kinds and such manner that the finished product. of such proces.s Olt' manufacture: can be put to a spe- cial use or use:s to which such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactu red products in the:i:r original condition could not have been put, and who in a dd,ition alters. such raw material o E manufactured oE partially manufac.tu red products, or combine s the same to produce such finished products for the: purpose of their sale or distribution to others and not f o r his own use or consump tion ... During the pendency of these cases be~ folt'e this Court, respondent Commis s ioner of Internal Re:venue olt':dered, under h i s Memorandum Order date:d July 16, 1980 (p. 23, BIR rec.) ~ and also under his ist Imlorseme�nt of Septembe:r 4, 1980, (p. 56, BIR rec.) '� Revenue E.xamine:rs. Celso P. Razal and Apolonio G. Santos to investig1ate the feasibility or nonfe:as- ibility of the claim of Usiphil for the refund or ta~ credit of the a mounts. representing manufacturer 1 s: sales ta~es. paid by it for the periods in que~s. tion . Said revenue examiners, upon receipt of the order , firs.t and f oremos t, proceeded to, examined and inve:stigated pe�ti1doner 1 s Parts Exchan ge Serv.ice Program (PES 6 for short)~ documents , shop facilities , 3~1- E

DECISION - CTA CASES NO S . 3054 & 3084 6- too ls and other equipmentr.s, machineries , demons.- trati o n cut- o ut s and the undercarriag1e :re�pair section f ound in the premises of petitioner . After a tho rough adminis.t.r ative investi9ation of these two ( 2 ) .cases (which took them all of the seven (7) ~onths from July to November , 19 80 ) ~ said examiners submitted to the Commissioner of Inte r nal Revenue a thorough and deta i led report dated November 21, 1980 (pp. 18-21, BIR rec .) .the pertinent , relev a nt a nd mos t i mportant portions of which are quoted below: "1. That while the attached Amended Articles of Incorpor ation (Annex "A") appears to au th o r i ze the� taxpayer to engage in several lawfu l activ i ties, it is in fact primarily engaged i n tradins, as sole d is t ribu tor in the Philippines of "Ca terp illar" brand of heavy machine- ries and equipment: it <>Hst r ibutes . On both impor.ta t:ions., xxx xx.x xxx it pays the corresponding advance sales tax. "It also provides. repa i r serv i ce of the machiner y and equipmen t of their cus- tomers and also acts as broker be twee n f o reign suppl ier s and Philippine customers. xxx xxx xxx it. pays the cor r espond- i ng contractor's tax of 3% and the 6 % com- mercial broker ' s tax. xxx xxx . "2 . It renders repair. service of the machinery a~d equipment purchased from i t, and also for damaged port i ons thereof , when par t s are brought i n by their c us t omers in their shops . Th e y also send t echnicians to cond �J c t .rep a i rs 3 ~~-- F

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 3084 - 7- o f mach i nery and equipment in the field . Taxpayer supplies the labor and t he replacement parts at the expense oft t he ir cu s tomers . xxx xxx xxx Taxpayer d o es not acquire� ownership of the parts repaired . xxx xxx xxx They p ay t he contractor's t ax of 3% on their. gross receipts therefrom . "3. That taxpayer was fou nd to have been pa ying the manutactu~er ' s sales t ax during the per i od above- mentioned on its sales of r epaired replacement parts it ha~ previously acquired throu g,h trade-ins. from i ts customers. The trade - in of parts and the� r e pai r thereof is part of their PART EXCHANGE SERVICE PROGRAM under the~ management and c ontro l of the PES De p a rtment of their Product Support Division . XXX XXX XXX t he r ecords ot thi s Division and from in te-rviews had with Mr . Ernesto Hernandez., the head of said Department, The Program's operation is described as follows: 'Whe n a cus tomer brings in a damaged part of a heavy machi ner y or equipment, the t echnical experts in the re - pair shop examine the extent of the damage. If it wil l e nta i l extensive repa i rs and r eplacemen t of maJor par t s, the custome r is a l ways advised to either s c rap am:l1 part or have it repaired a t the cus- tomer ' s expense . The r eason for this is because the com- pany as a .matte r of busine ss policy, does not accep t QS trade-in e xtensi vely damag e d parts. Busine ss experience had taught t hem that such de:als. are not al ways a paying1

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 308 4 - 8- proposi tion . It will only accept trade-in parts with mino~ damage that would re- quire slight repairs and replacement parts such as seals, gaskets, bussings , etc. In exchange of the traded- in parts, the cus.- tomer i s offered a brand new part or a second hand repaired pa~t . Accordingly, the t.raded,-in parts are re- pai~ed in their shop and carried again in their inven- tories. As a result , they mai nta in inventories of t.wo categor1es, namely, tne brand ne~w pa~ts and the second hand repaired par t s. It was also observed that the brand new parts carry values substan- tially higher than the second hand parts. "To ve�rify the extent of the� repai rs made on traded- in parts and the nature of the r.e:pai r s, we worked on their shop records, par ticularly their f1les on "COMPLETED JOB REPORTS". It clearly show t he CORE VALUE lor traae - 1n value ), THE NEW PARTS CONSUMED , the . LABOR COST COLUMNS and the TOTAL COST COLUMNS which are: selt - explanatory as t he i r t .1tle s indicate. We have , ~hexefore, pick e d a t r andom Lrom their yearly files the enclosea "COMPLETED JOB Rt:P01{TS " marked as Annexe s "F " and "F-1" t o "F-14 " , inclus i ve, to obtain a clear pictur:e of the acqui- sitlon, tieatment, and dis- posltion ot all t he elemen t s involved i n t he operati on . "Very clearly, we asce r- t.ained that there is no manu - facturing. activTty 1nvolved . 3<('!--H

uEClSION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 3084 - 9- "4 . Tha tr. i n the t our of the pre:- mises of t h e ta xp ayer, we s a w no manu - facturing. fa ci l it1es ex c~t t o r the usual t ools, such as welding equ1pment , plumbi ng t ools , chain bloc ks, various ~anica l and electrical g adge ts c;;. n d se vera l h and t o ols. We s a w on deck f o .r r.epairs- at t.he time of our in s - pect ion t urbo chargers, idler compo- nents, tor que c-onv er teTs, c arr i e r roller. compone.n ts , engi n e:s a nd he'aViy machinery, transmission s, tr ack frames, cylinder heads as identified by their re-spective "PES" tag.s ." "As a result, we have come to the conclusion that sub~ct taxpayer. is n o t a manufa cturer as defined unde:r S e:ction 1 8 7 (x) of t he Tax Code�. We butt.ress. this statement with t he following o bservati o n as summ a r iz-ed below : �a. The parts a ccepted as- trade- ins a re� the sl igh t .l y damaged ones and were even usable before i t wa s dis-- mant led except for the reduced mecha- nical efficien~ ; 'b. The repairs done do not result in a new product. because the part pre.s e nt e.d is a finished product by itself ; 'c. The repairs done do not alter the ori ginal form and substance of the parts repaired a nd do not consign the same part for a s p ecial use other us.es. different from the original one; and 'd. That they could not have been engaged in manufacturing because they are not. equipped with ma n ufacturing f acilities except for a repair shop as desc-ri bed aoove. Moreover , quoted hereunder is a ruling of this office ide�n tified as "BIR Ruling, No . 2, Series of 1959" wherein the facts cited wh ich was the basis of the promul- gation of said .ruling fit snugly into the case at bar: 3~1- I

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 3084 - 10 - 'Persons who purchase second hand automobi les which are fairly in running condit i on but who, prior to the resale the�reof, make minor repairs thereon, such as changing minor spare parts with new ones~ repairing minor damages on the body, such as scratches, general cleaning and polishing, which do not affect such changes in the vehicle as to practically remove al l traces of their original appearance are essen- tially dealers subject to graduated annual fixed tax . We reiterate, therefore, that subject taxpayer~ has never been a manufacturer as contemplated under Section 187 (x) . of the Tax Code. XXX XXX XXX Premises. c:onsidered, it is 1 the~re fore�, recommended that the t0tal ameunt of P95,7 , 518.86 be~ refunded to the tax- payer pursuant to Section 292 in relation to Sect~on 295(3) of the Tax Code, i t being an erroneous paymen t." (Under- lining ours.) For his part, and at this juncture, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue . seemed to find no merit, not only in the asse rtions of taxpayer , but also in the very findings of his revenue examiners, which strongly and singularly prove and upheld the claims of taxpayer that it is not a manufacturer sub jec t to manufacturer's sales tax in these two (2) cases in que:st i on . Al thoug,h the most recent. on - the - spot investig,at.ion of the premises of peti - tioner USIPHIL , Inc. yi eld ed negat ive �csult s to

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 3084 - 11 - the effect that petitione~ was no t found to be a manufacturer by Revenue examiners Celso P . Raza l and Apolonio G. Santos, confirmed i n their ~eport to res pon dent (su pra ) .when they s ta ted that " (taxpayer) .could not have eng)ag.ed in manufacturing facilities except for a repair shop as described above (see also letter "d", p. 19 , BIR rec . , p. 7, thi s Deii:::isi on ) '� re~spondent Comm is.sioner of Int:.e�rn a l Revenue had pursued or taken a runabout, nay a diamet..r ically opposed, position from that of his� e�xaminers. by s.tating, in effect:" xxx.. that:. Us i phil has. always considered itself as a manufac:turer and h as thus bee n paying, the 7 % tax on its. tax..able s a les. of completely rebuilt compon e nts, assembl ies, machin- !. eries, engines, and other equipments. xxx.." a nd assumecl that t:.his status and activity of petitioner coulcd� have been" xxx. made� possible only with the use of hig,hly specialized and sophistic:ated equip- ments and by followin g, rigid factory specifications and technology by highly trained personnel." (pp . 103-104, BIR rec . ) It is important to note, in this connection , that in the arguments of the parties in su ppo r t of the i r r. espect. ive~ claims, r e'spon ci c:',.~ i:..; u L: t h l2' 3 ~ I - 1-<-..

-� DECISION - CTA CASffi NOS. 3054 & 3084 - 12 - belie�f that Sectio n 187 (x) _of the National Internal Rev enue Code applies to pet i tioner as a manufacturer , wh ile petitioner, on the other hand, says it is not. The respondent Commis- sioner of Internal Revenue and pet:.it:ioner have� therefol'e drawn tw.o (2) _divergent in t erpretations of said provision to bolster their respective positions. The Cou rt, at this point, now pauses and view the res pective claims of respondent and petitioner from a very ideal vantage point. Counteravailing testimonial evidence however has proven that petitioner sells reconditioned component assemblies or parts which it had pre- viously r epa ired. (pp. 12-17, t.s.n ., Feb. 6, 1981.) The custome r acqu ires through sell the reconditioned component assembly by paying an amount wh ich is equal to the net: of the trade-in value of his worn out: assembly. The wo rn out assembly shall be acqu ired in return by petitioner which will be repaired on its own account and at its expense; and when fully repa~red or reconditioned, i t will be carried in petitioner �s inventory of recondi- tioned component assemblies ready for sale to its next customer having a worn out component ( ibid, 3~1- L

-� DEC ISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 3084 - 13 - t.s.n.; ibid .. ) . The worn out componen t ass emb ly e :Kehang.ed must be ide nt ical to t he one deli ve'red by petitioner and must be within repai rable damage . (pp . 13, 34 , i bid .) Th e c omponen t ass emblies or parts , referred to above, co nsist of. c ha rg,er, t .ru c k r ol ler s , torque conv erters, torque dividers, e ng,i ne s , tr-ans- missions , cyl inder heads , track frames, front i dler s, t .rack ca r .t. ier r ollers, a nd fuel pumps. (p. 1 5 , t. s . n ., i bid ) �. No new products are turne d out after these compnent assemblies have bee n comple te ly repaired and their efficiency r-es tored t o t he maximum. In the repair of the component assemblies or parts, the usual ord inary t ools needed for. their repairs are employed an d� these t ools and equipment.s used are usually f ound in other r epair shops. (p. 16 , t.s.n., ibid. ) . Cont~ari l y , we find no evidenc e to sh ow the truth of re spondent's conclusion that. the component asse:rnblie�s wer- e rebuilt with hig,hly spec:ializ.e'd e:quipments and under rigid fac tor y spec i fic:ations. and te:chnologly, which to us is merely based u pon assump tions. I n analy~ing Section 1 8 7 (x) o f t h e Nat ional I nter.na l Revenue Cocle in question , l1 cT e t ofo r e 3~1-M

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 3084 - 14 - quoted , we ar e in ful l agreement wit h pe titioner tha t s aid Section clear l y prov i des f or: fo u r:� (4 ) . different modes of manu f ac t u r ing and t ha t t he r esult- ing p rocedures o r modes of manufacture br i ng.s out products which are entire ly d if ferent f rom t he r aw materials manufactured or parti all y manu f actur e d produ cts us ed i n o r c omposing the mQnu[Qcturc d pr oduct. In other words , the manufactured produc t was. b roug.ht about. by t.he proc.ess o f ( 1 ) _al te:r ing by chemical or physica l process, e:xter i o r texture, form or inner substance, quantity of the raw material or manufacture or par t ially manufac t ured product; and/o r the (2 ) combination of t he raw mate:ri als o r manufactured or partially manufactured products with other materials or products of the same or differen t kind , either to (a ) put the f inished product for special uses which i t .cannot be put in its oJrig;ina l condition ; (b ) _or r educ e it to market - able shape f or any uses of indus t ry ; (c ) or for the purpose of their sale or distribu t1on to o the r s and not f o r t he manufacture r's own u s e or consump- tion . ( I ta 1 i c s our s �.) As fa r as t he e videnc e in t hese ca se s s how, non e o f the fou r ( 4) _modes of ma n ufac t uring was perf orme d by petit i one r:, wh i ch t o us is t he simple 3<61- f\1

DECISION - CTA CASES N OS ~ 305 4 & 3084 - 15 - act of making minor repairs of the component parts which i s not one o f the manu facturing pr ocesses. It neither altered by che mical or physical process, the component assemblies or parts nor c omb ined these component assemblies or par.ts with other mater ials to form an entirely new manufactured product for sale or d is tribution to others . After re�pair, i t is the same component u.ssembly formerl y dtamag,ed. It is, therefore, obvious th a t pe:titi oner , in the repai r of the component assemblies or parts, did not perform acts of manuf act ur i ng a s de�fined under Section 187 (x ) of the Nati onal Internal Revenue Code. Hence, it is not liable as a manu- . facturer. for manufactur er's s.ale~s tax p u rposes � Mor e over , to bolster this conclusion , a cur- sory incurs i on into the lexical meaning of the word "manufacture" was made by this Court. The word "manufacture" , a term found in Section 187 (x) of the National Internal Revenue, t he provision of law here in question , means the operation of making wares or any produc t by hand, by machiner y, or by othe:r agencies ; or anything, made from r aw materials , by the hands , by machinery, or by art, as clothes, iron, ute:ns i ls, shoes , machinery , saddlery , e tc . Any useful product made directly by human labor, 3~1-0

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 3084: - 16 - . or by the aid of machinery directe:dl or controlled by human power , and either from raw materials or from materials worked up i nto a new form. Also the ptroces.s by which such products are made or fashioned . To make or f ab ricate tr aw ma te:r ials. by handt or machinery or by art. wor.ked out i n to f orms. convenient for use. (Federico B. Moreno , Philippine Law Dictionary, 1972 Ed., p. 292; underlini ng ours. ) . The We:bst.er ' s Thi.rd New In te rnational Dictionary , 76th Ed,., defines " manufact-urer" as "one who chang,es the f orm of a commodity or who creates new commodity ." (p � 13 78 ; I ta1 i cs our s � ) Ag,ain, the case of Manila Trad ing & Supply Co . vs. City of Manila, e~ al ., 105 Phil . 581, 586-587 , brought into focu s a case: cited therein, which is. the City of Louisville vs. Louisville Tin & Stov.e Co ., 186 s.w . 124, 125, in which latter case , it was aptly stated thus - "We do not uncilerstand that in order for a business enterprise to be a manu - factory it i s necessary for: it to be engaged in the business of making com- pleted art icles from ma t eria ls which are� altogether raw. It is nonetheless a manufactory if~ as in this case, it c ombine s sepalfate parts manufactured and c ompleted by others with new mate- rials which it i t.self cuts and fa shions into proper shape , and thus produces an entirely new article suitable for use . xxx" (Underscoring ours .) . 3~1 _. f

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS. 3054 & 3084 - 17 - What t hen is the difference between manufac- turing, and x-.ep air in9-? In the case of Vicente Uy Chao vs. Aguilar, 103 Phil . 219, 222 , it was pointed out that, "xxx. Repair is re storation to a sound or good state after decay , dilapidation, in jury or partial destruction. It is essentially a process of reconstruction, or of broken or damaged parts of a structural whole. xxx. " In its ordinary a ccept- ation, there:f:ore, the term repair must be under - s .tood to apply to the restoration of thing,s. after injury or partial destruction without there being a complei:e loss of identity of the t:hing being re.paired . Another case in point is Alburo vs. Villanueva , repair implies the putting of something back into the c ondi~ion in which i t was originally and not an improve:men t in the condition thereof by adding, something~ new thereto, unless the new thing. be in substitution of something formerly in existence and is added to preserve the or i ginal status of t he subject matter of the repairs~ xxx" (Unde rlining ~ -) . Under the new Internat iona l We bster's Dictionar y, "r econdition" is restoring to a go o d c on d i t ion (~-~----~-y_ repairi ng, replacing �E_�tS.) 3~1- [\

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3054 & 3084 - 18 - By virtue of the foreg,oing under lying pronounce- ments and interpretations of the above terms , one can safely conclude t hat in repair or in recondition- ing j obs , which petitioner actually did to the com- ponent assemblies or parts in this case, decidedly no new product was t urned out by pe�ti ti oner unlike in the c<.:se of actual manufacturing. Indeed , this brin~us to the penaltiate conclusion that peti - tioner can be anything but not a manufacturer . Consequently, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that petitioner is not liable for the payment of 7% manufacturer's taxes in the sum of El4 4 , 451.48 for the last quarter of 1977, and El913,067.38 f o r the years 1978 and 1979. WHEREFORE, respondent Commissioner of In terna l Revenue is hereby ordered to refund or extend a tax credit to petitioner Usiphil, Inc., in the sums of El44,451.48 (CTA Case No. 3054) .and El913 , 067~8 (CTA Case No. 3084) ~ which the latter had erroneously paid as 7% man ufacture�r 's sales taxes for the last quarter of 1977, and for the year s 1978 and 1979, respectively, or a total sum o f El957, 518. 86' . 3)(1-P-

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS e 3054 & 308 4 - 19 - No pronouncemen t as to costs . Quezon Cit y, Metro Man ila, Sept e mbe r 22, 1 982. ...- ---~ .............. � ROAQUIN J udge I CONCUR: ~AMA~NTE ~ Fk{Lj ER~.~ Pre siding, Judg / ~~ Associate Judge s '3 ~/-