'Registered industrial units paying excise are eligible for remission under ST law'

I have a registered industrial unit in Jammu (J&K). I get some items manufactured from other registered industrial units in Jammu. The Sales Tax Department of Jammu says that the remission (i.e., tax exemption available to industrial units in Jammu on manufacture) will be available to the unit which actually manufactures the said goods. My question is: ‘Who will be considered the manufacturer under Sales Tax law? The principal who supplies all the raw material for manufacturing the said item and also supervises the manufacturing process along with payment of excise duty on the said item, or the job worker who manufactures goods on behalf of the principal’?
The relevant notification dated 16.03.2006 only requires the industrial unit claiming the remission to be formally registered with the Department of Industries and Commerce/Directorate of Handicrafts/Handloom and also with the Department of Commercial Taxes. There is no mention about manufacture in the same unit. In my opinion, since you meet the registration requirement, discharge the excise duty liability and also make the sale, the remission should be available to you, so long as the other conditions are fulfilled.

I want to know whether the provision for extension of warehousing period under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable to goods procured locally against CT-3?
The said Section 61 will apply only to imported goods warehoused under the provisions of Section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962 and not to locally procured goods.

We supply bunker fuel to ocean going vessels from customs bonded warehouses by filing an ex-bond shipping bill and invoice on the agents of the vessel in Indian Rupees. Is it considered an export sale and is VAT payable?
In the case of Madras Marines & Co. [1992 (62) ELT 161 (SC), the Supreme Court, on identical facts, held that it was not a case of sale in the course of export and that sales tax is payable, as the sale happened when goods were apportioned in the bonded warehouse. In the case of Hotel Ashoka [2012 (276) ELT 433 (SC)], in a set of different facts, the Supreme Court held that when goods brought from foreign countries kept in bonded warehouses are transferred to duty free shops and sold at duty free shops, the goods have not crossed the Customs frontier. The sale/purchase is a transaction within India but outside its Customs frontiers and so, no State could impose any tax as the transaction of sale or purchase was in the course of import of goods. In both cases, the Court dealt with Section 5 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Article 286 of the Constitution of India and the facts of the cases, but the decision in the case of Madras Marines & Co was not brought to the attention of the Court during the arguments in the case of Hotel Ashoka. The two decisions appear to be at odds but my view tilts in favour of the Hotel Ashoka judgment.