Vardhman Special Steel's greenfield plant timeline shifted again – now FY27 or FY30
The company's greenfield project timeline has moved from July 2029 to a fuzzy target of either FY27 or end-FY30, creating material uncertainty around its largest capex.
What's new
- Q1 FY27 sales volume 89,000 tonnes, up 21% YoY.
- Revenue ₹426 cr, up 12%; PAT ₹41 cr vs ₹20 cr.
- Company is fully booked and refusing orders due to strong demand.
- Greenfield plant redesign may increase capacity above 5 lakh tonnes.
Themes from the call
Demand
Demand is so strong that the company is refusing orders, with Q1 volumes up 21% YoY.
Margins
EBITDA per tonne at ₹10,750; reheating furnace stabilization and in-house processing expected to improve mix and margins.
Capital allocation
Greenfield plant costs are 10% below ₹475 cr estimate; funding not seen as constraint, but timeline uncertainty clouds capex phasing.
Guidance watch
- FY27 sales volume target 250,000-260,000 tonnes; potential to cross 270,000.
- FY28 EBITDA per tonne range Rs 8,000-12,000; could move to Rs 9,000-12,000 after new solar.
- Greenfield plant commissioning: FY27 (opening) vs end-FY30 (Q&A) – unclear.
Risk flags
- Greenfield timeline inconsistency raises questions about project execution and management credibility.
- Licensed capacity expansion from 3 lakh to 3.6 lakh tonnes pending approval; beyond that volumes are conditional.
- Customer qualification for forging and die steels could delay revenue ramp.
Key quotes
-
"We are completely booked and are currently refusing orders because demand is so strong."
— Suchit Jain, Chairman and MD -
"We seem to be on track that we will start our plant in July 2029 as of now."
— Management, Apr 2026 call (prior) -
"We expect the new plant to start by the end of FY30."
— Management, Jul 2026 call
The brief
Vardhman Special Steel's Q1 was a picture of operational strength: sales volume up 21%, PAT doubled to ₹41 cr, and the company is turning away business because demand outstrips capacity. That part of the story is clean. The problem is the greenfield plant. In January and April, management said July 2029 was locked in. In the July call, opening remarks shifted the target to FY27 — just six months away from the call date. By the Q&A, that had slipped back to end-FY30, with meaningful revenue only in FY31. The two statements sit in the same transcript without reconciliation. The project is being redesigned at larger capacity with lower carbon intensity, and land acquisition is targeted for August-September. That may explain a delay, but not the confusion. Investors are left guessing which timeline to underwrite. Meanwhile, the existing business throws off cash, brownfield debottlenecking is working, and the Aichi forging tie-up is on track. The die steel and import-substitution push adds a second growth leg. But the greenfield contradiction is the one thing that can knock confidence in the broader plan. Until management ties the timeline to specific milestones — land purchase, equipment orders, regulatory approvals — the project remains a credibility overhang on an otherwise strong franchise.
Strong demand and solid execution in the existing business; the greenfield timeline mess is the one weakness that needs fixing.