Oceanagold (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2343. October 4, 2022.] (C.T.A. Case Nos. 9517 & 9559) OCEANAGOLD (PHILIPPINES), INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION MANAHAN , J p : Before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed on March 4, 2022, without respondent's comment, per Records Verification 2 dated June 29, 2022. Petitioner assails the Decision 3 dated February 10, 2022, which denied petitioner's appeal of the denial of its claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate (TCC) amounting to Php125,040,087.42 representing excise taxes allegedly erroneously paid by petitioner for the period January to June 2015, as follows: WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution of the Court's Second Division, respectively dated February 3, 2020 and September 1, 2020, in CTA Case Nos. 9517 and 9559, are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . 4 In its Motion, petitioner argues that the Court erred in holding that the date of commencement of commercial production cannot be determined and in requiring petitioner to submit pre-operating expenses duly approved by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). We deny the motion. Petitioner raises issues that have been discussed and resolved in the assailed Decision. We reiterate that in Oceanagold (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 5 this Court already stated that the submission of the work programs for the determination of the "date of commencement of commercial production," as well as proof that the pre-operating expenses have been duly approved by the Secretary of the DENR, is required. CAIHTE In the instant case, no such submissions were made by petitioner, thus, the Court cannot determine if the subject excise taxes were paid during the recovery period or that petitioner is still under recovery. Thus, the claim for refund/issuance of TCC cannot be granted. The Court will no longer belabor to repeat the relevant portions of the assailed Decision. Petitioner fails to raise any new and substantial arguments, and no cogent reason exists to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's Decision. It would be useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself. 6 WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Erlinda P. Uy, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro and Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, JJ. , concur. Lanee S. Cui-David, J. , is on leave. Footnotes 1. EB Docket, pp. 140-159. 2. EB Docket, p. 163. 3. EB Docket, pp. 117-134. 4. EB Docket, Decision dated February 10, 2022, p. 133. 5. CTA EB No. 1904, August 16, 2019. 6. Madeleine Mendoza-Ong v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 146368, October 18, 2004.