1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.16 OF 2006 M/s.Lupin Laboratories Ltd. .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II Commissionerate, Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.M.H.Patil with Ms.Aparna Hirandagi for the appellant. CORAM : R.M. LODHA & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 14TH MARCH, 2006. P.C. Heard. 2. The appellant could not establish that the money deposited by it under protest was in the capacity as `manufacturer'. The appellant could take benefit of the legal position of non-applicability of the limitation of six months to the claim for refund only if it satisfied that the amount was deposited by it as `manufacturer' under protest which it failed. Admittedly, the duty was deposited on 16.2.1991. The application for refund under section 11B was made on 4.6.1993. The application is, apparently, time barred. 2 3. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)