CIR vs.

CENVOCO Facts:

-

-

-

Private respondent CENVOCO was a manufacturer of edible and coconut/coprameal cake and other coconut related oil sub ect to the miller!s ta" of #$ and it also manufactures lard% deter&ent and laundr' soap sub ect to the sales ta" of ()$* +n (,-.% CENVOCO purchased a specified number of containers and packa&in& materials and paid the sales ta" due thereon* +n an investi&ation conducted b' C+/0s revenue E"aminer% a deficienc' miller0s ta" was in found* 1o% CENVENCO filed a letter to C+/ to re2uest for reconsideration of the deficienc' miller0s ta" assessments*

+t should be noted that the law relied upon b' the :+/ Commissioner as the basis for not allowin& Cenvoco!s ta" credit is ust a proviso of 1ection (.- of the old 3a" Code* 3he restriction in the said proviso% however% is limited onl' to sales% miller!s or e"cise ta"es paid @on raw materials used in the millin& process@* <nder the rules of statutor' construction% e"ceptions% as a &eneral rule% should be strictl' but reasonabl' construed* 3he' e"tend onl' so far as their lan&ua&e fairl' warrants% and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the &eneral provisions rather than the e"ception* 6here a &eneral rule is established b' statute with e"ceptions% the court will not curtail the former nor add to the latter b' implication* 5ence% the sales% miller!s and e"cise ta"es paid on all other materials Ae"cept on raw materials used in the millin& processB% such as the sales ta"es paid on containers and packa&in& materials of the milled products under consideration% ma' be credited a&ainst the miller!s ta" due therefor* Certainl'% containers and packa&in& materials are not raw materials* 3he' are not used in the manufacture of Cenvoco!s finished products which are coconut% edible oil or coprameal cake* :ut% such finished products are packed in cans and tetrapaks* +t is true that the &overnment is never estopped from collectin& ta"es because of mistakes or errors on the part of its a&ents% but this rule admits of e"ceptions in the interest of ustice and fairpla'* +n this case% there can be no error in allowin& the sales ta"es paid b' CENVOCO on the containers and packa&es of its milled products% to be credited a&ainst the deficienc' miller!s ta" due thereon% for a proper application of the law* ta" burdens are not to be imposed% nor presumed to be imposed be'ond what the statute e"pressl' and clearl' imports% ta" statutes bein& construed strictissimi juris against the &overnment*

-

-

o

+t contended that the last provision of 1ection (.- of the 3a" Code does not appl' to sales ta" paid on containers and packa&in& materials% hence% the amount paid therefor should have been credited a&ainst the miller!s ta" assessed a&ainst it*

-

-

C+/ denied the re2uest of CENVOCO* CENVOCO% then% appealed to the Court of 3a" 4ppeals throu&h a petition for review* C34 decided the petition in favor of CENVOCO* +t ruled that CENVOCO is liable for deficienc' miller0s ta" for the 'ear of (,-.* C4 affirmed C340s decision that the sales ta" paid b' CENVOCO on the containers and packa&in& materials of its millled products can be credited a&ainst the miller!s ta" due thereon* -

-

5ence% the petition under consideration% posed the followin& issue: 65E35E/ O/ NO3 35E 147E1 348 P4+9 :; CENVOCO 65EN +3 P</C541E9 CON34+NE/1 4N9 P4C=4>+N> ?43E/+471 FO/ +31 ?+77E9 P/O9<C31 C4N :E C/E9+3E9 4>4+N13 35E 9EF+C+ENC; ?+77E/!1 348 9<E 35E/EON* /ulin&: ;E1*

-