EPACK Durable Q2 FY27 results: net loss widens to ₹25.07 crore, revenue up 106.0%

How did EPACK Durable perform in Q2 FY27?

On a consolidated basis, Q2 FY27 revenue was ₹439.33 crore, against ₹213.26 crore in Q2 FY26 and ₹886.02 crore in Q1 FY27. The year-on-year increase was ₹226.07 crore, or 106.0%, while the sequential decline was ₹446.69 crore, or 50.4%. Total income was ₹441.07 crore, compared with ₹219.42 crore a year earlier and ₹887.72 crore in the previous quarter.

EBITDA was ₹7.06 crore in Q2 FY27, against ₹0.54 crore in Q2 FY26 and ₹55.02 crore in Q1 FY27. The EBITDA margin was 1.6%, up 1.3 percentage points from Q2 FY26 but down 4.6 percentage points from Q1 FY27. Profit before tax was a loss of ₹29.42 crore, compared with a loss of ₹27.04 crore a year earlier and profit of ₹19.89 crore in Q1 FY27.

EPACK Durable reported a net loss of ₹25.07 crore in Q2 FY27, against a net loss of ₹22.25 crore in Q2 FY26 and a net profit of ₹11.82 crore in Q1 FY27. Basic EPS was a loss of ₹2.60, compared with a loss of ₹2.32 in the year-ago quarter and ₹1.23 in Q1 FY27. On a standalone basis, revenue was ₹434.1 crore and the company reported a net loss of ₹22.9 crore.

What changed in EPACK Durable's costs and profit?

Total expenses were ₹470.49 crore in Q2 FY27, up ₹224.02 crore, or 90.9%, from ₹246.47 crore in Q2 FY26. Cost of materials rose ₹148.45 crore to ₹319.06 crore, employee cost rose ₹5.54 crore to ₹19.33 crore, depreciation rose ₹4.45 crore to ₹17.96 crore, and other expenses rose ₹10.80 crore to ₹30.01 crore. Finance costs were ₹20.26 crore, up ₹0.03 crore from ₹20.23 crore. There was no exceptional item.

Other income fell ₹4.42 crore to ₹1.74 crore from ₹6.16 crore in Q2 FY26. Tax was ₹7.52 crore, compared with ₹6.44 crore in the year-ago quarter, while the loss before tax widened by ₹2.38 crore to ₹29.42 crore. The company’s presentation also stated that depreciation and finance cost rose with new capacity and that joint-venture losses increased.

The company’s earnings presentation attributed the Q2 FY26 comparison partly to PLI income: it stated that Q2 FY26 included ₹80 million of PLI income, while no PLI income accrued in Q2 FY27. The filing also cited unseasonal rains and GST-transition destocking as factors affecting the Q2 FY26 base.

How did the first half of FY27 go?

In the first half of FY27, consolidated revenue was ₹1,325.36 crore, compared with ₹875.66 crore in H1 FY26, an increase of ₹449.7 crore or 51.4%. Total income was ₹1,328.8 crore, compared with ₹886.29 crore, up ₹442.51 crore or 49.9%.

Profit before tax moved from ₹4.71 crore in H1 FY26 to a loss of ₹9.53 crore in H1 FY27. The company reported a net loss of ₹13.25 crore, compared with a net profit of ₹0.65 crore, and basic EPS was a loss of ₹1.38 against ₹0.07 in H1 FY26. The company’s presentation said H1 FY26 included ₹213 million of PLI income, while no PLI income accrued in H1 FY27.

What do the balance sheet and cash flow show?

As of 30 September 2026, total assets were ₹2,342.66 crore, down from ₹2,505.63 crore on 31 March 2026. Total equity was ₹947.89 crore, compared with ₹960.33 crore, while borrowings rose to ₹775.19 crore from ₹707.02 crore. Cash fell to ₹1.12 crore from ₹15.78 crore.

Inventories declined to ₹714.1 crore from ₹836.59 crore, trade receivables fell to ₹319.14 crore from ₹352.21 crore, and trade payables declined to ₹443.19 crore from ₹714.06 crore. In H1 FY27, operating cash flow was ₹11.67 crore, compared with negative ₹208.87 crore in H1 FY26; investing cash flow was negative ₹51.59 crore versus negative ₹68.33 crore, and financing cash flow was ₹25.26 crore versus ₹274.54 crore. Capital expenditure was ₹46.06 crore against ₹141.92 crore.

How has EPACK Durable done over the last 8 quarters?

Revenue reached a high of ₹886.02 crore in Q1 FY27, up from ₹662.39 crore in Q1 FY26, before falling to ₹439.33 crore in Q2 FY27. Profit followed a similar pattern: a net profit of ₹11.82 crore in Q1 FY27 became a net loss of ₹25.07 crore in Q2 FY27, while the earlier low was a net loss of ₹22.25 crore in Q2 FY26.

The EBITDA margin was highest in the listed period at 11.2% in Q4 FY25 and lowest at 0.3% in Q2 FY26. It recovered to 6.2% in Q1 FY27 before easing to 1.6% in Q2 FY27. Revenue rose year on year in each of the last two quarters.

What else did the company announce?

The board approved the unaudited standalone and consolidated financial results for the quarter and half year ended 30 September 2026 on 29 October 2026. It also approved the sale of EPACK Durable’s entire 50% paid-up shareholding in Epavo Electricals Private Limited to Ram Ratna Wires Limited; on completion of the transaction, the company’s shareholding in Epavo would fall from 50% to nil.

The board approved the voluntary strike-off of two non-operational wholly owned subsidiaries, Bumjin India Audio Products Private Limited and EPACK Electronic Component Private Limited. It said the strike-off was not expected to have a material impact on operations or financials. The board also noted CFO Rajesh Kumar Mittal’s resignation for personal reasons, effective from the close of business hours on 31 October 2026.

What did the auditors point out?

The independent auditor’s review report stated that trade receivables included a disputed balance of Rs. 1,961 lakhs, which the company believed had a high probability of recovery and for which no provision had been recognised. The auditor said that, considering the legal dispute and the absence of sufficient appropriate evidence on the customer’s ability to pay, it was unable to determine whether an adjustment was required to the carrying amount of trade receivables and the allowance for expected credit losses.

The auditor described the conclusion on the consolidated interim results as qualified. The review report also stated that a review is substantially less in scope than an audit and that the auditor did not express an audit opinion.

What did EPACK Durable's management say?

Management said it expected the Indian air-conditioner industry to grow 20%–25% in FY27 and said EPACK Durable should outgrow the industry through share gains, new customers and expanding partnerships, without giving a numeric company target. It did not provide formal FY27 revenue, margin or earnings guidance.

Management said approximately ₹100 crore of the earlier roughly ₹470 crore capital-expenditure plan would be spent over the next 6–12 months, while the Hisense front-load washing-machine pilot was to finish by the end of November 2026 and mass production begin from December 2026. It said gross debt was expected to remain broadly stable at approximately ₹775 crore, or about 0.8x equity, with no significant new capital raise.

Management identified commodity-cost recovery lags, forex volatility, depreciation and interest from new capacity, gross debt and the absence of Q2 FY27 PLI income as risks. It said the exit from Epavo represented capital discipline, while PLI-discount rollback and a richer product mix were expected to support margins.

How did EPACK Durable shares react?

After the filing, EPACK Durable’s shares fell 3.1% within five minutes, 3.3% within 15 minutes and 3.0% within 30 minutes. On the reaction day, the stock fell 11.6% from its pre-results close of ₹174.2; by the next day’s close, it was 13.0% below that close. The Household Appliances industry median fell 2.6% on the reaction day and 1.3% by the next day, while the Nifty Microcap 250 fell 2.5% and 1.1%, respectively.

The stock underperformed the industry median by 9.0 percentage points on the reaction day and 11.7 percentage points by the next day. Earlier reaction-day moves were also negative: 6.4% on 11 August 2026, 11.5% on 20 May 2026, 3.6% on 20 January 2026, 9.8% on 4 November 2025, 6.0% on 19 July 2025, 2.0% on 27 May 2025, 9.7% on 31 January 2025 and 5.3% on 12 November 2024.

How did other Household Appliances companies do?

Eleven other Household Appliances companies had filed for the quarter. Their median revenue growth was 15.1%, while EPACK Durable’s revenue growth was higher; all 11 peers grew more slowly than the company, and none grew faster. Eight of the 11 peers reported higher profit.