Good afternoon everyone, and thank you for joining us to discuss our fourth-quarter and full-year FY26 financial results. I trust you had an opportunity to review our investor presentation.

I will begin with an overview of our operational performance and key strategic developments during the quarter, followed by an update on our long-term growth initiatives. The global chemical industry continues to operate in a challenging environment marked by persistent overcapacity, pricing volatility, and subdued demand across several end-use sectors.

In addition, the industry has witnessed elevated supply chain disruptions and input cost pressure arising from geopolitical developments in the Middle East. Despite these headwinds, differentiated specialty chemical players with strong customer relationships, technological capabilities, and niche product offerings continue to demonstrate resilience.

Against this backdrop, Neogen Chemicals delivered a strong financial performance during Q4 FY26, supported by sustained demand visibility across our core products and high plant utilization levels. Our growth momentum was steered by rising volumes across key end-use applications, including pharma, flavors and fragrances, and other specialty applications.

While input costs, including packaging material and logistics-related expenses, remained elevated during the quarter, our strategic pass-through mechanism helped protect core profitability. Importantly, FY26 was also a defining year for Neogen as we continued our transition towards a future-ready portfolio led by battery materials.

This strategic shift was further reinforced by the promoter group's capital infusion of ₹161 crore through preferential allotment at a premium to the SEBI floor price, reflecting strong confidence in Neogen's long-term growth trajectory and significant opportunities emerging within the lithium-ion battery materials ecosystem. The proceeds will support the expansion of Neogen Ionics, working capital requirements, and other strategic initiatives.

As our CFO will shortly take you through the detailed financial performance, let me briefly highlight the quarterly performance. On a consol basis, revenue for Q4 FY26 stood at ₹247 crore, registering a strong growth of 22% year-on-year, while EBITDA increased by 21% year-on-year to ₹44 crore.

EBITDA margin sustained at 17.8% despite expansion-related overheads, geopolitical-led supply chain disruptions, and temporary costs associated with the Dahej replacement facility and toll manufacturing arrangements. Profit after tax for the quarter stood at ₹11 crore.

On Dahej replacement facility, construction of the plant is progressing rapidly, and commissioning remains on track on June 2026. On the insurance front, we received a recent tranche of ₹60 crore in February '26, which provides additional liquidity comfort during our ongoing transition.

This brings our total cumulative on-account insurance claims received to ₹140 crore plus a salvage realization of ₹7 crore. Our net claims receivable stands at ₹203 crore, and we are working closely with insurers towards expediting the final settlement process.

Let me now turn to our battery chemicals business, which remains the most important strategic pillar for Neogen's current future growth. Our Pakhajan greenfield site continues to progress in line with planned activities.

Commercial manufacturing for electrolyte remains targeted for H1 FY27, while electrolyte salts are expected in H2 FY27. During the quarter, the project achieved a significant operational milestone with completion of mechanical assembly and successful transition into the trial run phase for the specialized electrolyte plant.

Our immediate priorities are process stabilization, phased capacity ramp-up, and customer qualification. We continue to witness improving demand visibility for India's gigascale ACC battery manufacturing ecosystem alongside strong international interest for non-FEOC-compliant supply chains.

Encouragingly, we have received provisional approval from additional global customers for lithium electrolyte salts, while final site audits for multiple US-based electrolyte makers have also been completed and are currently awaiting final commercial clearances. These developments position us well to transition from pilot and qualification volumes towards regular commercial supplies over the coming quarters.

During the period under review, we calibrated our execution strategy, which led to a revision in the project timelines and capital outlays for our battery materials projects. Please note that the updated project timelines remain fully aligned with our earlier guidance.

We are on track to commission both the Dahej and Pakhajan plants within the current financial year, FY27. Under this updated schedule, the Dahej Phase 1 project is budgeted at ₹428 crore and is firmly on track for completion by February 2027.

Concurrently, the revised cost for Pakhajan Phase 2 stands at ₹1,367 crore and expected completion by March 2027. These revisions primarily reflect design-led optimization following the integration of advanced Japanese technologies along with higher localization of critical subcomponents aimed at improving long-term operational reliability and reducing import dependence.

Importantly, this investment significantly strengthens the competitiveness and technological robustness of our battery material platform over the long run. Our strategic partnership with Japan's MU Ionic Solutions continues to progress well, and their planned equity contribution of $20 million towards the joint venture is expected by the end of H1—during H1 FY27.

Through this partnership, Neogen is building India's first non-FEOC-compliant electrolyte salt manufacturing platform backed by proven Japanese technology, creating a differentiated and globally relevant supply chain alternative. Neogen is at a pivotal inflection point as we enter FY27, a year that will fundamentally transform our business scale.

The commissioning and ramp-up of one of India's largest dedicated battery materials facilities at Pakhajan, combined with normalization of our standalone operations following Dahej replacement plant commissioning, will significantly strengthen our growth trajectory. We believe Neogen Ionics is well-positioned to emerge as a globally competitive and reliable partner within the battery chemicals value chain, supported by improving customer visibility, technology partnerships, and India's rapidly evolving energy transition ecosystem.

We remain confident of achieving revenues in the range of ₹875 to ₹950 crore in FY27 on a standalone basis, considering full production from MPP5 from Q2 FY26 onwards. With that, I would like to hand over the call to our CFO, Mr.

Gopikrishnan Sarathy, who will take you through the financial performance for the quarter and the year in greater detail.

Thank you, Dr. Kanani.

Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to Neogen Chemicals Q4 and FY26 earnings call. I will take you through the financial highlights for the quarter and the year.

Please note, all the numbers are on consolidated basis. Revenue for Q4 FY26 stood at ₹247 crores, registering a strong growth of 22% year-on-year.

Performance was driven by improved volumes, sustained high plant utilization across our core businesses, despite ongoing supply chain disruptions, elevated input costs arising from geopolitical developments in Middle East. Neogen Ionics also maintained steady momentum during the quarter, contributing ₹13 crores to Q4 revenue and ₹36 crores for the full year.

Looking at our operational verticals, organic chemicals recorded a revenue of ₹194 crores, up 7% year-on-year, while inorganic chemicals segment delivered a standout performance with ₹53 crores in revenue, marking an impressive 145% expansion over the previous year base. EBITDA for the quarter stood at ₹44 crores, up 21% year-on-year, with consolidated EBITDA margin maintained at 17.8%.

As indicated by Dr. Kanani, the performance remained resilient despite expansion-related overheads at Neogen Ionics, temporary supply chain disruptions, and one-off costs associated with Dahej replacement facility and interim toll manufacturing arrangement.

As the upcoming Pakhajan and Dahej facilities progressively scale up, we expect stronger operating leverage and improved fixed cost absorption. Further, this would also be supported by insurance recoveries.

Profit after tax for Q4 FY26 stood at ₹11 crores, reflecting robust profitability. Finance costs remained elevated on account of ongoing capital deployment towards Neogen Ionics and the reconstruction of the Dahej facility.

For FY26, revenue stood at ₹862 crores, registering a growth of 11% year-on-year, while EBITDA increased to ₹137 crores, and PAT stood at ₹29 crores. H2 FY26 reflected a significantly stronger cash flow performance compared to H1 FY26, supported by improved operating efficiency, better working capital management.

Net cash from operating activities turned positive ₹14.6 crores in H2 FY26 versus an outflow of ₹246.1 crores in H1 FY26, driven by healthy cash generation from operation. Turning to our balance sheet, consolidated total debt reached ₹1,330 crores in FY26, bringing the net debt to ₹1,295 crores.

Increase in debt was driven by targeted funding for the Dahej facility rebuild and ongoing capital deployment at Neogen Ionics. We remain focused on optimizing our balance sheet, driving working capital efficiency, and maintaining high prudent capital allocation strategy to maximize sustainable returns on our investments.

Reflecting our strong performance and long-term growth confidence, board has recommended a final dividend of ₹1 per equity share for FY26. This underlines our commitment to delivering consistent value to our shareholders.

That concludes my remarks. I will now request the moderator to open the floor for Q&A.

Hi. Good afternoon, Harin.

Good afternoon, Gopi sir. Yeah.

my first question on this revision in your cost for the battery chemical projects. You mentioned that there will be import substitution and there will be a long-term operational reliability.

Our cost, as far as this project is concerned, has gone up more than ₹250 crore. Can you tell us how much saving we can do, or the returns that you expect?

Are you increasing your return as you mentioned on the earlier discussion that 18% kind of a return you expect from this project, but if you are investing this much more than ₹200 ₹250 crore of capex? Any improvement in that?

That's the first question. Sure.

Thank you for your question. As you can see, we are basically aligning our technology to Morita technology, so that has been one reason.

The second reason, if you would have seen that in the investor presentation, we added additional 500-metric-ton intermediate facility of a simple lithium compound for which we have a opportunity to sell to our international customers, including our partners. This is the total of that.

With the savings that we have in raw material and other operational efficiencies, even today when we look at our return on capital employed, ROCE numbers, they are at 20%. Around 18% to 20%.

When we put together the revised model also, the return remains at 18% to 20%, 20% being the base target on the salt side. With electrolyte, as I said, we are finalizing it, but effectively we should be targeting 18% to 20% ROCE, even after the revised capex.

Okay. Secondly sir, how much was the revenue from electrolyte business in FY26?

In

the total ₹36 crore kind of revenue numbers, it was below ₹10 crores, but I don't have the exact number for you right now. The majority of it is from the salt.

Okay. Sir, when you are guiding ₹875, ₹950 crore kind of a revenue in FY27 for our standalone business, how much revenue you are catering in from salt plus electrolyte in this?

No, ₹875 to ₹950 is non-battery business, right? There is no salt or electrolyte sales in the ₹875 to ₹950 crore revenue.

This is after factoring in the Dahej replacement plant? That will be there?

Okay.

Yes. If you remember, our original was around ₹950 to ₹1,000 crore on full utilization level.

Dahej plant is starting a little bit later. We had targeted to start in Q1; instead of that, there were some delays to complete the project because there were labor shortages related to constructions over last two, three months.

It got slightly delayed, so that's why we are saying ₹875 to ₹950. We are seeing very positive signs for organolithium sales as well as lithium sales, which is not impacted by Dahej.

If we are able to outperform in that, then we would be able to even achieve the original ₹950 to ₹1,000. Because there was a slight delay in starting Dahej plant, that's why we said ₹875 to ₹950 crore.

We are trying our best with organolithium and lithium compounds to achieve the original target of minimum ₹950 and then ₹950-plus kind of revenue from the standalone. This doesn't include any electrolyte salt or electrolyte.

The Neogen Ionics revenue potential, we had mentioned last year to be ₹300 crore-plus. The same remains the current guidance also.

We expect to have a ₹300 crore-plus kind of revenue from our NIAL business. However, this will be mostly in the second half.

We will see some improvement from Q1, Q2 as compared to So, we'll see quarter-on-quarter improvement, but majority of the sales will be in the second half as more gigafactories come online for electrolyte as well as our Pakhajan site is also expected to come online in the second half, and the final capacity in Dahej is also expected to come by Q3. I think all of this will give a higher boost in Q3 and Q4, and that is where you will see majority of the revenue coming.

Okay. Sir, lastly, on the quarterly number, our revenue grew by about 12% Q-o-Q and around 22% Y-o-Y.

Can you split that in volumes and value?

Most of this is basically by volume. There was hardly impact of maybe 2% or 3% which was because of value.

Rest of it was completely through volumes.

Okay. Thanks, and all the best.

Thank you.

Yes. Good evening, Dr.

Harin. My first question is, how is the lithium price and the bromine price are currently as compared to the previous quarter?

Have you seen this stabilizing? How will this reflect in our top line in our legacy businesses for that?

Yeah.

Thank you for your question. I think bromine prices have stabilized a bit because we saw that, after there was a pause in the war, there were shipments which Dead Sea Bromine was able to arrange to China market, which over a period of time started stabilizing the bromine prices, and bromine prices have remained stabilized.

We'll see if there is more further disruption. They may reduce also because they remain kind of little bit on a elevated level.

When it comes to the lithium prices, there was a one large jump, but after that, it is slowly increasing. We have not yet seen a stable lithium price.

It's very difficult to predict how it works, but we feel this is driven by higher demand for ESS and even some areas we are seeing little bit more push towards EV with the current gasoline prices and higher petrol and crude oil prices. If the trend continues, we may see lithium prices increase further beyond levels, but it is very difficult to predict at this point in time.

If these kind of prices sustain, our potential from the standalone business, how much it will increase because we are currently still sticking to our close to ₹900 crores top line. Any early indication how we can expect kind of a increase in this potential revenue?

I normally don't factor in commodity price increase how it will change our top line significantly because most of it is like a pass-through, and it's anyway something which is difficult to predict. For us, more focus is on what we consider as a normal price revenue potential, what we have given you right now, which is basically, ₹875 to ₹950.

This sustained lithium price. Even now lithium prices are around $24, $25, lithium carbonate prices, which as per me is the kind of a normal price.

Because $15 to $20 is what I consider as a long-term stable lithium price. It's only slightly above.

The abnormally low prices are gone. Now it's more closer, I would say $20 plus-minus $5 as a long-term stable price, we are kind of in that range.

If it goes beyond that, then you may have some additional revenue, but there's no point to factor in. It's basically will be a pass-through.

My top line through that extent will be higher, but doesn't mean that it will have any impact on the EBITDA on that higher price. Therefore, I don't tend to consider.

Similarly, bromine price also ideally it should be between ₹300 plus-minus ₹50. Today, they are a little bit higher, although because of our contracts, we didn't see a very significant impact in the last quarter.

If they remain at this elevated level, there will be some increase on the bromine prices as well, which will impact the top line, but currently we are not factoring that top line when we are doing our budgeting. If they remain at elevated level, to that extent, our revenues will be slightly higher.

Understood.

Sir, what explains absolute increase in the inventory, receivables, and

Okay. Absolute increase in the inventory was mainly driven because we had taken some of the outside locations on kind of rent basis to basically get capacities.

These contracts were getting over by month of March, and since Dahej was not fully yet online, we kind of built up some inventories to take care of our sales in Q1 and Q2 level. We also decided to extend it slightly by another month, 1 and 1/2, to take care of the sales.

We wanted to wind down those operations with Dahej plant coming online. It was mostly driven by that, and some product-mix-related requirements that we had where we had to create some inventory.

Hi sir. Thanks for the opportunity.

First question on the salt pricing. How is the price gap now with China versus our pricing?

Yeah. When you compare with China, if you see majority of the beginning of the last year, the prices were actually almost 40 30%, 40%, 50% lower or even sometimes lower as compared to what our, let's say, long-term formula prices was.

However, after December, January, we saw when the lithium prices increased, again we saw increase in the salt prices as well, and then afterwards it's kind of reduced a little bit. We still have a 20%, 30% decrease, but it's lower as compared to earlier, but it is still a bit lower as compared to our prices.

In December, January, we saw an increase, but then it didn't sustain for too long. There was a period in time where they were even more expensive than us and then again they cooled off a little bit, but still not to the same levels earlier.

This is more reasonable prices as compared to it was, but still little bit lower as compared to what ideally it should be.

Sorry. What is the gap now?

You said they went up, they came down. What is the differential now?

Now

the differential would be if we look at our formula long-term price, it would be between around

20% to 25%. Fair enough.

Just two clarifications. One, the interest subvention that we have, right?

When does it start, from what date one should build that in? It will be a cash flow relief, right?

The P&L provisioning, etcetera, will still continue. The second question is on the standalone manpower cost.

We saw a sharp jump there on a Y-o-Y basis full year. What is driving that?

Sorry, I'm not very clear on what do you mean by interest subvention?

There is a there is a deferment that we There is a sorry, not subvention, moratorium.

The the morat that we

that we got from banks, right? From that.

Yes,

yes. I think all the moratorium is for the period of 1 year from the revised start of commercial operations.

Whenever we have the first start of stable commercial operations, there'll be 1-year morat from that. As we announced I think last calls itself that for Pakhajan there was a extension of 1 year for the electrolyte as well as the salt.

Assuming from our side, I think most of the work on the electrolyte we are targeting to be ready by H1. If we start commercial production and all the qualifications are completed in the H1, then 1 year from that.

In case of the salt, in H2, from the time we have the commercial production, 1 year from that. In case of our Dahej site, we requested again a extension for one subsection of 1,000-ton capacity, which again got delayed, and instead of Q1, we are expecting it to start in early Q3.

I think wherever that SCOD happens, from that, there will be a 1-year morat.

Sure. This is a cash flow relief.

The P&L provisioning will still continue.

Sorry. I'll just ask Gopi to answer that.

Yes,

it's an cash flow relief only for the principal repayment. Interest will start immediately after the SCOD is achieved.

Just for clarification, whatever interest is during the project is already considered in the revised cost of the project. Till the time it is capitalized, the interest is already included in the revised cost.

Thanks for the opportunity. Congrats on one good Q4.

First question is in terms of the battery manufacturer's plant in domestic markets, individually what is the status? Just allied question to that, on slide number 12, we have given current project updates where we have mentioned that the first approval material is shipped to the customer and for remaining 1,300 MTPA the trial production is ongoing.

Will we have to validate the entire 1,500 metric ton capacity as and when it gets commissioned from a trial production perspective, and what could be the timelines for the same?

Sure. Let me answer the second question first.

Basically the samples that we have given is representative for the entire 1,500 metric ton. Even the 1,000 metric ton which is remaining is going to come from the same site.

Basically now, with whatever samples that we have submitted and we also intimated that three customers three electrolyte makers in the US have now just completed the audit trial. I think with those for the three customers who have already audited and for the others we've submitted samples, for Dahej, we don't need to submit any fresh samples unless there is a customer request because sometimes a customer for each electrolyte maker, for each battery maker, they may request separate samples.

For the majority of our customer requirements, most of the sampling work is done. The audits are also completed.

Post audit, they have given us some corrections, which we expect to complete within 1 month or 2 months, and then once we demonstrate that, gradually the commercial supplies can start. We expect by July or August we will have commercial supplies start, and we don't have to wait for additional approvals from Dahej site.

Also, all the customers who visited, they also visited Pakhajan site which is under commissioning, and they were all very appreciative of the way the site is shaping up and the systems which we have put in the site, especially because it is designed from scratch with the Japanese technology. Most of them were of the opinion that the approval cycle in Pakhajan also will be shorter because our testing method, raw material supply, manufacturing, all of this is already aligned.

Only just the site is changing. Pakhajan will have a relatively shorter approval cycle.

This was the feedback from the customers who audited and approved us during the last quarter.

Right. Just one clarification on the question in terms of the domestic battery manufacturers.

Where are they in terms of putting their plants and probably providing us the commercial orders?

Sure. I think, one of so one of the customers have been already buying from us small volume for last 1 year, and they have now also increased their capacity, which is coming online.

Within the first half, their capacity is also increasing from 1 gig to 5 gig. The estimation that we have received from them will increase for the current year.

We expect a much significantly higher volume as compared to last year. There all the approvals are in place, and like we are on track.

It's just a question of their actual consumption, and Neogen right now is the only source for them, and we have excellent relationship with them. That business is certain, and the only volume depends on their actual production and actual consumption.

When it comes to a second customer, the second customer has like also visited and done a audit and in principle approved Neogen as a site. There'll be still more detailed qualification.

This customer So, this is also a giga customer who's starting a pilot line sometime in the second quarter, and they will start commercial production in 2027. Right now the way it stands, we're still discussing some commercials, but technically they've qualified the site to use the material in their trial production line, the pilot line, which the volume will be much smaller.

It will not be a gigascale, it will be megascale. The important thing is that since they will use it in the pilot line, they are likely to like they'll have the customer approval, the shift to the gigafactory will be more smooth.

On top of that, two of the giga customers who have started production or are expected to start, later on in calendar year '26, both of them have like, given us both of them have given us their recipes, and we've already submitted our samples. Right now, they are testing our versus China performance of the cells using Neogen electrolyte versus China electrolyte.

Once they do the performance trial and they have sufficient data, then they will start the process of moving Neogen as a qualified supplier for them. We already have two customers, one gigascale, one megawatt-hour scale, who have qualified Neogen.

Two more are in the process of like who are starting in '26, they are in the process of like validating Neogen's electrolyte versus Chinese electrolyte. Two other customers who are likely to start in 2027.

We've had good commercial and technical discussion, site visits, like we remain engaged with them for the final approval and qualification. Again, the question is they both had a original intention to switch from China, but how to switch from China to Neogen is what is currently being worked out.

Sure. The second question, in terms of the funds for our expansion.

Given that we'll be receiving ₹200 crores from the insurance claim and $20 million from Morita JV, do we need any additional funding during FY27, and after the current projects commissioning, what is the gross block at the end of FY27? Thank you.

Both the Morita money coming in, insurance is expected, and ₹160 crore equity has been taken care of. This money is sufficient to take care of completion of the project and to take care of the initial requirements.

We are on track for that. I think the total gross block of Neogen Ionics would be around ₹1,700 crores, ₹1,700 to ₹1,800 crores at the end of FY27 as most of the capex will be completed.

For standalone on a consolidated basis?

Gopi, standalone would be somewhere around ₹450 to ₹550 crore?

That's right.

Yeah. Once MPP3 MPP5, our Dahej site expansion is completed, we expect to be in the range of ₹450 to ₹550.

You can say basically whatever was the standalone gross block before fire, plus maybe ₹40, ₹50 crore more, which would have gone towards higher cost of the rebuilding. Again, hopefully that will also be majoritarily be covered by the insurance proceeds.

Sure. Thanks and all the best, sir.

Thank you.

Yeah. Good evening, thank you so much.

First one, would it be possible to just share a breakdown of the organic chemicals business line between the three three lines that you mentioned, bromine derivatives and the other two?

I think bromine derivative was about 44%, 45% 40%, 45% of the revenue. The advance intermediates was about 30% of the revenue.

The organolithium and lithium together were the balance.

Okay. When you mentioned that most of the revenue growth was volume driven, does that apply even to the inorganic business?

Because inorganic we've seen 140% growth. Is that largely volumes then?

Yes, it's mostly volume, because I think people knew that the lithium prices were kind of going up and we still had some inventory, there was a good demand, we were able to capture that. We've seen that when the lithium prices are on upward trend, volumes increase first.

We'll have to see whether that will be sustained because sometimes people are expecting higher lithium prices coming down the line, they are covering up. Anyway, Q4 is usually our strongest quarter for lithium most of the years.

We'll have to see how the next year goes. We have also added few new customers, and we are now able to recycle the lithium which is coming out of the organolithium plant.

All these also has made our lithium business a little bit more stronger. We'll see if that will allow us to still continue the growth as well as whatever is the growth because of the higher price of lithium in terms of the overall top line, we expect in the coming year.

Thank you. Just the second one I had, just two, three small parts within this, some accounting clarifications.

One is, in the standalone cash flow statement, under investing we see an ₹86 crore proceeds from sale of assets. Is this by the parent to Neogen Ionics?

Just wanted to clarify that because it doesn't show up in the consol books. Second thing is the capital work-in-progress if I look at consol minus standalone, the difference is about ₹700-odd crores, which implies that maybe we still have another ₹1,000 crores to go, given that total project cost is now ₹1,795 crores or so.

This entire ₹1,000 crores we expect to complete by FYQ, or is this fully sounds a little bit realistic there? Last one was just the employee costs sequentially it seems to be down about 22%.

Just wanted to get your perspective on that. Thank you.

I'll answer in the calculation that you did for CWIP ₹700 crore-plus, I wanted you to just keep in mind that some of the capex for our battery business has already taken place, right? It's not 700 plus what is capitalized is what we have spent.

That'll be roughly at around ₹950 to ₹1,050 crore is what we have spent, and the remaining ₹600, ₹700 crore will be spent in the current year.

Also some part lies in the capital advance.

Some of it is also part of the capital advances which has been there. For the specific query about your ₹86 crore, I'll ask Gopi to clarify.

Okay. You are right, the sale proceeds relates to the transfer of asset from NCL to NIAL, which was done 2 years back.

The money was not received while the transfer had happened earlier. Now that the CCD is in place, NIAL has paid off that money.

That's why it is being recorded in the cash flow as sale of property, plant, and equipment. The other question on the employment cost sequentially it has come down mainly because there was some change in the actuarial assumption that has resulted in some credit.

That's the reason on a sequential basis employment cost is showing a reduction.

Great. Thank you so much for the clarification, sir.

All the best.

Thank you.

Sir, thank you for taking my questions. Sir, just wanted to understand, you did speak about lithium pricing being on a normalized level right now.

Just with regards to that, just wanted to know what could steady-state realizations be in dollar terms for salts and electrolytes both?

For me the more stable lithium price would be $15 to $20, $20 kind of being like a base price. I feel ideally speaking on a long-term basis when supply and demand are kind of balanced, $20 of lithium carbonate is a reasonable price considering the cost of the lithium, the spodumene mining cost, and some royalties which are paid to the governments on that.

Plus-minus $5 would be the kind of fluctuation. So, $15 to $25 would be a ideally speaking range of lithium which should be.

Right now they are a little bit on the higher side. They are around $24, $25, higher end of it.

At $20, we have given salt around $20-odd, and $20, $21, and our additive around $25 to $30 in that range. Right now it would be a little bit higher as compared to that.

Okay. You said salts $20, $21, additives around $25, $30.

What about electrolyte?

Electrolyte also, depending on the volume and the scale, we had, as you remember, in the beginning, we had said around $8

to $10, and later on

we had said around $6 to $8 per kg. We expect currently it should be with the current lithium price somewhere around $7 to $9 per kg, otherwise $6 to $8.

This also depends on other raw material inputs. The lithium price have corrected, but some of the other inputs like solvents, etcetera, have not yet fully corrected.

In this, I'm not taking the war-related, because if I consider today's prices with impact of war, then it can be even above $8, more closer to $10-plus kind of a price. This is at a 5,000, 10,000-ton level, and in the beginning, customer demand would be 1,000 ton, 2,000 ton, at which it should be a little bit higher because the raw material costs and conversion cost is higher at that point in time.

Sure. So, $6 to $7, $7 to $8 would be a decent range for electrolytes.

If you're thinking of $20 with the other raw materials, I would say $6 to $8 would be the range, $7.5 as a average price.

Yes. Yeah.

Yes. Sure.

Sir, I just wanted to know, when you look at the consol cash flow, capex is basically amounted to ₹555 crores in '26. Now and of course, our capex also has been revised upwards, which was around ₹15 billion, now it's basically gone to around ₹18 billion, it's a extra ₹300 crores which has been for the revised capex.

Now, just aligning all these things, just wanted to know what could be the capex outflow on a like-to-like basis in '27 and '28 going ahead?

Okay.

See,

'27 and '28 You mean calendar year 2027, 2028, right?

No, no,

FY.

When I look at '26 '26, sir, when you look at the cash flow statement, ₹556 FY26,

yeah, yeah. FY26

is ₹556, '27, '28 just wanted to know how that would look like. Yeah.

FY27 we would complete with the balance capex, right, which would be Gopi around ₹600, ₹700 crore,

right,

plus maybe about ₹100-odd crore in Neogen, total together at around ₹800 crore. That's for FY27.

FY28, unless something changes dramatically, we don't have at present any fixed plans for increase in capex for Neogen because we want to fully stabilize the plant, achieve full utilization. Similarly, we have not yet planned any major capex for FY28 at present, although as we have said in the past that if both international demand and India demand comes up, we will have to increase our salt and additive capacity.

To what extent, we are not yet decided, I'm not able to give a number at present.

Sure. Just one final clarification.

I believe you said '27 ₹36 crores was battery chemicals revenue for '26, and '27 you expect ₹300 crores, but it will be more towards H2 FY27, that's the second half. Am I correct?

Revenue, you mean, right? Revenue.

Yes, revenue.

Yes. Revenue,

yeah.

Revenue as we said

for battery chemicals,

yeah, for the non-battery, it is ₹875 to ₹950.

Correct.

For the battery

That,

yes.

Battery you said ₹300 crores entire battery chemicals, ₹300 crores for '27, right? Mostly towards H2 FY27.

More than ₹300 crores. More than ₹300 crores for FY27, larger portion in the second half.

Every quarter sequentially, you should see an increase.

Yes, and '28 with everything going on stream finally, the entire capex, any ballpark numbers for '28?

We had in the past calculated that just the salt capacity at 80% utilization, and we expect a very healthy strong salt demand, like with electrolyte salt and additive demand. That itself is revenue of ₹1,000 crore-plus, right?

Depending on how the electrolyte demand shapes up, it will be something more than ₹1,000 crore. As we said, on FY29, it's ₹2,400 to ₹2,900 crore.

We feel in FY28 it'll be something more than ₹1,000 crore, let's say ₹1,200, ₹1,400, some kind of a number like that. We'll be able to give you more clarity in the second half of the current year.

Sure. Thank you so much for answering my questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yeah. Hi, team.

Thank you so much for the opportunity. Am I audible?

Yes.

Yeah. Our first domestic electrolyte customer is highly satisfied with Neogen compared to our competitors, mainly because of our quick response time and our ability to modify the electrolyte solution as per their requirement, right?

This helped us to secure a sole supplier position with them. Just want to check how's the negotiations are progressing with other cell manufacturers who are not using the wet dry coating, right?

Are we also achieving a dominant position there?

I think as I explained earlier in my call that second customer also visited our facility, had a pre-round, and qualified to use our electrolyte for their second line. Then there are two more who are now evaluating our electrolyte performance versus China electrolyte performance, and two more are discussing with us.

I think the factors are Neogen existing experience and the bigger plant capacity which is available because you need a higher capacity to take care of all the customers. We have a 30,000-ton plant which is under trial production, and that too which is built with Mitsubishi technology.

I think all of this is a positive for the customer. Now the customers with their experience in China last 1 year are also looking at localization.

The fact that Neogen has electrolyte salt and additive backward integrated, even electrolyte solvent purification is backward integrated. Some of these features are very attractive for the customer, and with all the six gigafactories under construction, we are having very positive discussions ongoing currently.

Got it. Sir, second one on the several South Korean electrolyte players already have their plans in US, right, for electrolyte.

Now they are and they have also already announced a capex in Korea itself for salt manufacturing, right, either JV or MOU. In that context, in that context, are you are your US salt customer looking at Neogen mainly as a second source or as a mainly backup supplier, or do you see clearly visibility for Neogen to become a meaningful supplier for the US for the US facility?

Yeah. At present, if you look, we have discussed in the past calls that there's one Japanese company and there's a Korean company with a limited experience, and there are two manufacturing plants which are coming up in India.

In Korea, while there were many announcements, but of the announcement, today actively being pursued is only one company which is still working on. You have two existing, one Japanese and one Korean, and three new, two Indians and one more Korean who's trying to start up.

In this, Neogen is the only one which has a technology partnership with Morita, which is very seen as an established kind of a technology because it has been in use. Between the three new, we see some advantage of customer looking at us as a stabilized or more reliable supplier, and hence, they look at Neogen a bit more preferentially as compared to the others.

This is our kind of view for LiPF6, electrolyte salt.

Got it, sir. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hi. Good evening, sir.

Thanks for the opportunity. Two short questions, squeezing them into one.

What would be the contribution of BuLiChem in Q4 and FY26? Number two, what explains the sharp increase in trade payables, almost as good as the COGS for the whole year?

If you can explain these two things, sir. Thank you.

then

it gives the exact volume to the competition as part of organo- Sir,

sorry to interrupt you. We were not able to hear the beginning of the answer.

May I request you to repeat from the beginning, please?

Sure. We are not giving, our sale of organolithium plant individually because it's a single molecule.

As compared to last year, we have seen a increase in our revenue, and we have seen approvals in the international market in the semiconductor applications, and we are expecting few more approvals in the international market. For us, current year in organolithium is is organolithium business has been is very We are looking really forward to this year where we expect a sharp increase in the business contribution from the organolithium side.

We achieved one of our highest production like as as as some of you may know, in the past we had announced we had increased capacity 2 and 1/2 times. We reached the full monthly volume, the highest peak volume ever in the month of March, and we continue to see that in the current quarter as well.

As compared to the installed capacity which was around 120 metric tons, we had increased 2 and 1/2 times to 300 metric tons per year. This year we are and last year was somewhere in between.

This year we are like, very strongly looking at a potential to achieve almost 80%, 90% of our increased capacity. Then if everything goes well, we may do a small capex to further increase this capacity in the coming year, but we are seeing a very strong response to our organolithium business.

Sir, second bit was on the trade payables, the very sharp spike that we have seen. Like I said, almost 365 days outstanding of trade payables.

What would explain that?

I think, as you know that last year we had already a lot of financing to do, there were a lot of funds which were required, and we were awaiting some insurance payment. We've kind of discussed with our suppliers, and we were able to negotiate longer credit terms with them, and some of them were also able to get factoring against Neogen's payment lines.

We were able to get longer credit terms, we basically use longer credit terms with them. Our long-term target, as we said, is to balance our debtors with our creditors.

This time, the creditors were still a little bit on a higher side than that, which was some kind of a special support because of fire-related situation from our suppliers.

Got it. Going into FY27, we should start seeing the payables to come down

as we get the insurance

part of the money and stuff like that.

Yes. Yes,

and

hopefully like I said, our debtors and creditors will stabilize each other, and our stocks will keep improving as we use full utilization level. We'll achieve the long-term working capital cycles gradually over next 2 to 3 years as we had informed earlier.

Right. Sure, sir.

Thank you and all the best. It's 140.

Thank you for the opportunity. I just have one question.

In the result document, you have mentioned the revised project timeline for Pakhajan Phase 2 as March 20 2027. Just wanted to understand, this is the timeline which has been provided is more for the electrolyte formulation part, and also Dahej Phase 1, as you had earlier highlighted, the capacity which you are setting up at Dahej would be largely based on our own technology, while in the remarks you have also said that we are transitioning from in-house to Morita technology.

That will be more towards the Pakhajan part or are we also will be shifting our 11 2,100 incremental salts capacity to the Morita technology part? That's it from my side.

Yeah.

I think most of the Dahej capacity remain our capacity. We've done some adjustments through the technology, but majority remain.

Also, the salt capacity in Dahej also includes additive where, we don't have the collaboration with Morita, that remains completely Neogen's own technology. Large part of that 2,500 is related to our own, and majority of the Morita-related technology adjustments were in our Pakhajan facility, as well as But one change if you look at our investor presentation is we've added 500 metric tons of additional intermediate salt capacity, which is required or which is the starting material for our raw material for electrolyte salt, which we are in discussion where this is consumed by our partner Morita in China as well as few other customers who are making LiPF6, and they all and Morita being our like, partner, they are positively considering to purchase this from us.

Other LiPF6 established LiPF6 producers are considering to buy this intermediate from us to achieve the China-free requirements. I think that is the additional capex required for in our Dahej site, which has been updated in our presentation.

Got it. On the revised project timeline which you have given in the result document as March '27, that is for our electrolyte 30,000-ton capacity which is coming up?

No, so that is for the entire project because till now the bank is in the process of dividing it. This is the SCOD which we have taken approval from lenders.

In terms of our timelines, we expect H1 we should have completed majority of the electrolyte work and H2 for the salt, so that remains unchanged. Similarly in case of Dahej Phase 1 also, by Q3 we feel already 1,500 tons is completed and only the last bit of 1,000 and the 500-ton addition that we have planned should be completed by Q3 and maybe a little bit some capacity by Q4.

Again, this is the approval which we have taken from the bank. We remain committed to complete majority of the 1,000 plus the new 500 intermediate by Q3.

As we explained for the Pakhajan, H1 for electrolyte and H2 for the salt. In H2 also mostly by end of Q3 it should be ready.

Q4 we should be able to do additional revenue can start getting generated. Since sometimes approvals take longer, we've not factored in any revenue from this.

We've kept it as a backup in case if electrolyte revenue is reduced because of lower demand in India, then whatever revenue we get from Pakhajan in Q4 will be used as a backup, or otherwise it will be additional revenue, which is the ₹300 crore-plus part depends on Q4 from Pakhajan minus any reduction in electrolyte, so that would be the balancing figure.

Okay. Just a small follow-up, sir.

So 5,500 would be our total salts plus additives capacity, and this 500 intermediate which you are setting up would be over and above that 5,500 tons capacity?

That's right. Yes.

Yes.

Out of that 5,500 tons, what would be the split between salts and additives?

Salts would be approximately around 4,000 around 4,000-odd crore, and 1,500 to 750 would be the additive.

Got it. Thank you so much, sir.

That's all from my side.

Hi, sir. Just one thing.

Since we have increased the capex, what would be the peak debt that we would be seeing? Previously, we have alluded to ₹1,700 crores I guess as the peak debt, and what would be now?

As we explained in our presentation, since we have already ₹160 crore equity which has come in from the promoter as well as the $20 million from our JV partner, which was not factored in during the initial discussion, the peak debt will not change, will remain the same as earlier.

Okay. Just one thing, since you mentioned that

Pratham, can you please come in a better reception area? Yeah.

Hi, am I audible?

Yeah? Go ahead.

Yeah. Just one thing.

Mentioned that 36 crores contributing from Neogen Ionics. If I just deduct that from inorganic chemical, there we actually degrowth.

What is the reason for degrowth?

Sorry, I couldn't get your question. You are saying was there a degrowth

In inorganic chemical business, if I just deduct the 36 crores revenue which we received from Neogen Ionics, then there is just a 10% drag in the inorganic chemical business. It has been dragging us continuously.

What is the reason that we can attribute to?

I think during majority of the year, the lithium prices on an average was lower, so that I can see one of the reasons. I would need to take a little bit more closer look before I can answer.

In volume terms, have we been growing on that front?

I have seen no significant increase or decrease, have been more or less overall stable.

Or

slight increase also, but yeah. Yeah.

Just one more thing. If suppose there is a delay in ramp-up in capacity given what I am trying to factor in, I foresee a liquidity issue in the company.

If you can just clarify on this part key how is the ramp-up happening?

As you see whatever has been the delay in our project startups, the repayment schedule has been already been delayed to the same extent. Broadly speaking, let's say whatever was supposed to get completed in March is getting March '26, everything is getting completed by March '27.

Now that we got the extra time, most of the approvals, everything will be in place. The revenues also will ramp up, and so we feel overall I don't see a big change as compared to that.

The additional capex which was required was already funded through additional equity, both from promoter side as well as JV partner. For us, there's not too much of a difference.

Whatever insurance proceeds we are receiving on a regular basis, and whatever balance also we expect to receive in a relatively shorter period of time. Therefore, we are not concerned.

If there is any need, we will always keep a watch, and if required, we would raise money if needed or if required.

Sure, sure. No concerns.

Thanks, thanks.

Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for the opportunity.

My question was regarding a domestic gigafactory customer who's utilizing dry battery electrode. Sir, how does the architectural shift impact the technical specifications of the electrolyte considering it's a dry battery electrode, it will be a little more sensitive to moisture and all?

I wanted to understand that.

Basically when it comes to electrolyte, any component you change in your manufacturing changes the electrolyte composition. When you go from LFP to NMC or within LFP different kind of cylindrical versus prismatic type or even depending on the application, whether it is for energy storage or whether it is for EV applications, each one has a unique electrolyte design depending on the size, shape, and the type of technology used in the battery.

As on the anode also you have carbon only or carbon silicon. All these permutation combinations require a separate individual electrolyte design and optimization.

Yes, dry cathode is a relatively challenging technology, it required more trials to begin with. In my view, it's one of the stringent requirements when you go for NMC, dry cathode, that too with no secondary cooling.

I think we've already kind of achieved electrolyte which is performing really well in this condition. Yes, each cell design, we have to optimize the electrolyte.

Okay. Got it.

For some of the same customer, they have been scaling up the capacity to 2.5 GW. That would create a demand for 350 to 400 tons of LiPF6.

I wanted to understand what portion can we cater to from this demand?

Normal rule is 1 gigawatt-hour requires 1 gigawatt-hour requires 1,000 ton for LFP 1,200 to 1,400 ton for LFP, and in case of NMC between 400 to 600 metric ton per gigawatt-hour. Again, I won't be able to commit specifically, but as I explained earlier in my call that the scale-up which has been done by the customer, we expect a higher electrolyte demand from them as compared to last year, significantly higher.

However, actual One is a capacity, but you run the plant at what capacity depends on the customer's production and sales plan. Depending on that, we will see how much actual electrolyte gets bought.

Yes, the demand will be significantly higher as compared to last year.

Based on the current demand that's being going to the customer, can we say we could do a 50%, 60% of their requirement?

From our side, we can meet 100% of the customer requirement and more because we have a capacity of 2 2,000 metric ton which is already in place and another 30,000 will be ready by H1, we can take care of the entire customer requirement.

We can take care of the requirement, but is it feasible or even wise enough? I'm just trying to understand what is the probable scenario here.

There is a very high probability that last year also 100% was met by us, and unless there are commercial differences, next year also 100% can be met by us. It's very common for a battery company to work with only one electrolyte company.

Historically for decades, companies have worked in this way, or at the most when they go to a 500-gig kind of a volume or very large volume, they may have two suppliers. There are very many examples where for decades, one entire battery company consume electrolyte from only one company.

Am I audible?

Thank you for the opportunity, sir. I want to understand like we wrote in our press release that we are confident of achieving a revenue in the range of ₹875 to ₹950 crore in FY27.

If we consider ₹875, it's kind of 2.33% growth for full-year basis. Can I get some understanding of in 3 to 5 years of the timeline, if we get all the approvals, our all capex and capacities come into picture, what kind of revenue we can make at Neogen on a consolidated basis?

For the financial year next year?

3 to 5 years time frame I'm asking, sir.

3 to 5 years. Okay.

Our FY29 full utilization level so let's say we have already stated that this year was ₹950 to ₹1,000. We've been a little conservative saying ₹875 to ₹950.

As I explained earlier, we'll try our best to achieve the higher end of the spectrum, which was the lower end earlier. This is on the Neogen level, and our guidance was that for FY28 we would like to have a full utilization with optimization, which can produce us ₹1,100 crore-plus kind of revenue.

Our FY27 target tentative target sorry, FY28 tentative target is around ₹1,100-odd crores. If we maintain the same growth rate, by FY29, we should be ₹1,200 crore-plus, between ₹1,200 to ₹1,400 crore-plus revenue just based on a regular demand in the existing business.

If we make a significant further investment in organolithium or some semiconductor-related or flavor fragrance or to take care of higher CSM needs, that would be additional. With investments which we have done today, we would expect somewhere around ₹1,200 to ₹1,250 crore by FY29.

On the battery side, we already guided to ₹2,500 to ₹2,900. Somewhere around ₹3,700 to ₹4,200 is the expected revenue by FY29 on a consol basis.

Again, like I told you, I see a need that we would have to add some additional salt capacity because we are in FY28, because we are seeing increase both local demand of electrolyte as well as international demand for LiPF6 salt, as well as we would also expect the CSM demand to start coming in from FY29 onwards. There'll be some additional investment which we may have to make in FY28, which will give a higher revenue in FY29.

This is something we don't know yet. With the existing capacity, we can have revenue of around ₹3,700 to ₹4,000 crore-plus based on the projections if we made till now.

In terms of capacity, currently our Pakhajan site can take care of around approximately 30 gigawatt-hour of electrolyte and electrolyte salt. There is a space to go three times higher in Pakhajan.

If you're talking of 5 years, depending on how the demand in India shapes up and in the international market, we can basically increase capacities for that. Similarly across our organolithium site and our Dahej site, as well as our Baroda site, we have a ability to go up to ₹4,000, ₹5,000 crore of revenue through brownfield expansions.

We'll see depending on how the demand shapes up. On a 3-year, FY29, with whatever projections we have given, we project somewhere between ₹3,700 to ₹4,200 kind of revenue by FY29.

Then let's say if we are thinking of FY31, whatever we decide in the future capex to increase on electrolyte, electrolyte salt, as well as in the base business for more CSM, more semiconductor, more organolithium, as well as the inorganic lithium demand to kind of go further ahead.

That was very helpful, sir. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time and engaging discussions. For any remaining questions, our investor relations team is available to assist you.

We value your continued partnership and look forward to sharing our next quarterly update with you. Thank you again.