Who is a Person liable to tax WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED.

We AFFIRM the assailed Decision

G.R. No. 184398 Silkair v. CIR dated May 27, 2008 and the Resolution dated September 5, 2008 of the Court of Tax
Leonardo-De Castro, J. Appeals En Banc in C.T.A. E.B. No. 267. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Petitioner Silkair filed for a refund of excise taxes it had allegedly paid on its purchases of
aviation jet fuel from Petron. The Court, however, denied its claim, holding that an excise
tax is an indirect tax. As such, it is Petron, as the manufacturer, and not Silkair, who can
seek reimbursement for its payment, even if the burden has been shifted to the latter.
DOCTRINE
An excise tax is an indirect tax where the burden can be shifted or passed on to the
consumer but the tax liability remains with the manufacturer or seller. Thus, the manufacturer
or seller has the option of shifting or passing on the burden of the tax to the buyer. However,
where the burden of the tax is shifted, the amount passed on to the buyer is no longer a tax
but a part of the purchase price of the goods sold.
OTHER NOTES
There was also an issue as to whether Silkair can claim exemption based on Sec. 135(b),
as it failed to present proof that it was authorized to operate in the Philippines. The Court
also ruled against Silkair on this issue because Silkair only presented photocopies of its SEC
registration and its other operating permits. The best evidence rule applies. Silkair also tried
to argue that the CTA should have taken judicial notice of its SEC registration, as it was
already offered and admitted in evidence in similar cases pending before the CTA. However,
the Court ruled that evidence already presented and admitted by the court in a previous case
cannot be adopted in a separate case pending before the same court without the same being
offered and identified anew.
DIGESTER: Alyssa Mateo

FACTS
1. Petitioner Silkair is an online international carrier plying the Singapore- Cebu-Singapore
and Singapore-Cebu-Davao-Singapore routes.
2. Petitioner filed a claim with the BIR the for reimbursement of P3.9M in excise taxes
which it allegedly erroneously paid on its purchase of aviation jet fuel from Petron.
3. Silkair based its claim on:
Sec. 135(b) NIRC exempts from excise taxes the entities covered by tax treaties,
conventions and other international agreements, provided that the country of said
carrier or exempt entity likewise exempts from similar taxes the petroleum products
sold to Philippine carriers or entities
Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between the Philippines and
Singapore fulfills the proviso in Sec. 135
4. BIR took no action on the claim, which led Silkair to file a petition for review with the
CTA. This was denied; hence, this petition.

ISSUE with HOLDING

W/N Silkair is exempt from the payment of excise tax NO
Excise taxes are considered taxes on production as they are collected from the
manufacturer or producer of goods.
o They are indirect taxes which are levied upon the manufacturer or importer
(in this case, Petron) upon removal of the taxable goods from its place of
production or from the customs custody.
o These taxes, however, may be passed on to the end consumer (in this case,
Silkair) as part of the transfer value or selling price of the goods sold.
The proper party to question, or claim a refund or tax credit, of an indirect tax is
the statutory taxpayer, which is Petron in this case, as it is the company on which
the tax is imposed by law and which paid the same, even if the burden was shifted
or passed on to another.
Even if Petron shifted or passed on the burden of the tax to Silkair, the additional
amount which petitioner paid is not a tax but a part of the purchase price it had to
pay to obtain the goods.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION