About Rs 350 crore in lost excise revenue, says the Old Monk maker; a switch of label from “rum” to “rum-like”, says the Centre. The FSSAI Sale Ban on the rum is next before the Bombay High Court on October 23.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Mumbai: Hearing the manufacturer of Old Monk rum on its challenge to a prohibition order of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which restrains sales of the product from its Thane unit, the Bombay High Court on October 12 listed the matter for further hearing on October 23 [Mohan Rocky Springwater Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others].
Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna sat as the Division Bench.
What the company told the Court
Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, for the manufacturer, argued that the regulations permit neutral spirits with approved additives, that competitors use identical processes without facing similar bans, and that other units in Maharashtra continue to sell the same rum formulation. He submitted that the restraint on the Thane unit had caused losses of over Rs 500 crore to the company, and added:
“The excise has also lost around ₹350 crores in revenue.”
These loss figures are the company’s submissions and have not been examined by the Court.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Quashes FSSAI Order On Red Bull’s ‘Energy Drink’ Label, Cites No Hearing
The Centre’s answer
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, for the Union and its authorities, told the Court that sales would be permitted if the company changed its labelling from “rum” to “rum-like”.
The FSSAI’s objection and the labels offered
The FSSAI’s position before the Court is that artificial or nature-identical rum flavouring masks the natural composition of the spirit, making the product sub-standard and misleading if sold simply as rum. Such a product, it says, must be labelled as a flavoured product or a spirit with rum flavour. It has also objected to ageing descriptors on the label such as “7 years old blended” and “very old vatted”.
The High Court had earlier declined to grant an interim stay of the prohibition. The company then offered revised draft labels that dropped the disputed age descriptors and prominently declared “added flavor”. The FSSAI did not approve them, and the company asked the Court to hear the matter on merits.
What the dispute tests
At stake is how far the food regulator can insist on product-category names and label descriptors for alcoholic beverages, and whether a flavoured spirit may be sold under a standard name such as rum. The company says it is being singled out; the regulator says the labelling misleads consumers.
No order on merits has been passed, and the restraint on sales from the Thane unit continues until the Court decides otherwise.
Case Title: Mohan Rocky Springwater Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others
Bench: Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna, Bombay High Court
Date of Hearing: October 12, 2026; next hearing October 23, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond for the petitioner; Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for the respondents