Ladies and gentlemen, good day and welcome to Carborundum Universal Limited Q2 FY25 earnings conference call hosted by DAM Capital Advisors Limited. As a reminder, all participant lines will be in the listen-only mode, and there will be an opportunity for you to ask questions after the presentation concludes. Should you need assistance during the conference call, please signal an operator by pressing star, then zero on your touch-tone phone. Please note that this conference is being recorded. I now hand the conference over to Ms. Bhoomika Nair from DAM Capital Advisors. Thank you, and over to you, ma'am. Thank you, and a warm welcome to everyone on the 2Q FY25 earnings call of Carborundum Universal Limited. We have the management today being represented by Mr. Sridharan Rangarajan, Managing Director, Mr. Sushil Bendale, Chief Financial Officer, Mr. G. Chandramouli, Advisor in Investor Relations, and Mr. Ganesh Kumar, Senior Manager, Strategic Planning. At this point, I'll hand over the floor to Mr. Rangarajan for his initial remarks, post which we'll open up the floor for Q&A. Thank you, and over to you, sir. Good morning. I'm Chandramouli. Let us start the proceeding with the disclaimer clause. During this call, we may make certain statements which reflect our outlook for the future or which could be construed as forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are associated with uncertainties and risks, which are more fully detailed in our annual report, which may cause the actual result to differ. Hence, these statements must be reviewed in conjunction with the risk that the company faces. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning to all of you, and a warm welcome for our Q2 earnings call for this financial year FY24-25. First of all, a very happy Diwali to all of you. Hope this year brings a lot of wealth, peace, and health to all of you and your family. Today, I'm joined in this call by Sushil Bendale, our CFO; Chandramouli, who handles the investor relationship; and Ganesh, who handles the strategic planning. I'll provide an overview of the company's performance for the quarter as well as the first half, and then we will open up for questions. So first, to start with, I'll talk about the performance of Q2 and H1 FY25. Consolidated financial results. Consolidated Q2 was INR 1,209 crores. This is the highest quarterly sales. This was a growth of 7.6% compared to Q2 FY24. This growth was contributed by all three segments. Minerals contributed about 6.5% growth, abrasives about 6.4%, and ceramics 5.5% growth. Compared to Q1 FY25, sales in this quarter grew by 2.1%, Electro Minerals grew by 5.6%, ceramics grew by 3.7%, and abrasives was lower by 1.5%. Consolidated sales for H1 FY25 was INR 2,393 crores, with a growth of 3.4% compared to the same period last year. The growth was contributed by growth in abrasives, which was at 6.4%. Electro Minerals was lower by 1.6%, while ceramics was lower by 0.5%. Now, coming to the profit before interest and tax for Q2 FY25, Q2 the PBIT was INR 154 crores. This was a growth of 9.2% over Q2 FY24. Compared to Q1 FY25, PBIT grew by 3.4%. So both quarter -on -quarter as well as sequential, there's a growth. PBIT margin at consolidated level improved from 12.6% in Q1 FY24 to 12.8% in Q2 FY25. PBIT for the first half of the year was INR 304 crores compared to INR 296 crores in H1 FY24. PBIT margin percentage for the first half of the year was at 12.7% as against 12.8% in H1 FY24. Profit after tax for Q2 FY25 was INR 116 crores, showing a growth of 13.7% compared to profit after tax for Q2 FY24. Profit after tax for Q2 FY25 improved by 2.6% when compared to profit after tax of Q1 FY25. Profit after tax for H1 FY25 grew by 6.4% to INR 229 crores compared to H1 FY24. PAT margin increased from 9.3% to 9.6%. Now, I'll cover the standalone performance. Standalone Q2 was INR 705 crores, with a growth of 9.6% compared to Q2 FY24. This growth was contributed again by all three segments. Electro Minerals contributed about 9.2% growth, abrasives 8%, and ceramics 4.8%. Compared to Q1 FY25, sales in this quarter grew by 6.3%. Electrominerals grew by 11.2%. Ceramics grew by 5.2%. Abrasives grew by 1.7%. Standalone sales for H1 FY25 was ₹1,316 crores, with a growth of 5.1% compared to same period last year. This was contributed by growth in abrasives and electrominerals at 7.6% and 2.4% respectively. There was a marginal drop of 0.8% in ceramic segment. PBIT for Q2 FY25 was ₹116 crores, with a growth of 4.4% over Q2 FY24. This was contributed by 8.6% growth in ceramics and 4% growth in abrasives over Q2 FY24. Electromineral PBIT was lower by 6.2% when compared to Q2 FY24. Compared to Q1 FY25, PBIT in Q2 FY25 degrew by 3.2%. PBIT of electrominerals and ceramics in Q2 FY25 grew by 33.3% and 26% respectively. Abrasives were lower by 7%. There were unallocable expenses of ₹17.6 crores in Q2 FY25 compared to unallocable income of ₹0.7 crores in Q1 FY25. More details on unallocable part will be covered by Sushil later. PBIT for the first half of the year grew by 0.9% to ₹235 crores against ₹233 crores in H1 FY24. PBIT margin percentage to sales at standalone level was decreased from 17.2% in Q2 FY24 to 16.4% in Q2 FY25. The margin in Q1 FY25 was at 18%. There was a small decrease in PBIT margin percentage from 17.9% in H1 FY24 to 17.2% in H1 FY25. Profit after tax for H1 FY25 grew by 2.2% to ₹180 crores when compared to H1 FY24. PAT margin decreased from 13.5% to 13.1%. On a quarterly basis, PAT grew by 4.4% to ₹86 crores when compared to Q2 FY24. PAT was lower by 7.3% when compared to Q1 FY25. Now, I'll cover the performance of each segment. Now, to start with abrasives. Consolidated abrasives sales for H1 FY25 was ₹1,995 crores, with a growth of 6.4% when compared to the same period last year. Standalone business, Rhodius, and Awuko showed good growth compared to H1 FY24, whereas Sterling Abrasives and CUMI America had a small negative growth. Q2 FY25 sales was at ₹543 crores, with a growth of 6.4% compared to the same period last year. This was growth contributed by standalone, Awuko, and Rhodius, including VAW. Compared to Q1 FY25, sales was lower by 1.5%. This largely came out of the lower sales in Awuko. Standalone abrasives. Q2 FY25, standalone abrasives grew by 8% to ₹308 crores compared to Q2 FY24. Industrial segment, retail segment registered double-digit growth, while precision was marginally lower compared to last year. The growth was mainly on a there was also a small negative growth in exports. In comparison to Q1 FY25, there was a marginal growth of 1.7%. Sales for H1 FY25 was ₹611 crores, with a growth of 7.6% compared to the same period last year. The growth was majorly driven by industrial retail, while there was a small degrowth in precision. The growth in H1 FY25 over H1 FY24 was predominantly volume-driven growth. Now, I'll go to Rhodius. Rhodius in H1 FY25 achieved a net sales of €33.8 million compared to €30.7 million in H1 FY24. This represents a 10% growth in euro terms over the last year. There was an increase in volume, which is the predominant part. For the quarter, Rhodius achieved net sales of €16.5 million, which is 8.5% growth over Q2 FY24. And compared to Q1, there was a lower growth of 4%, reflecting the seasonality of their business. In H1 FY25, Rhodius incurred a loss of EUR 0.1 million against a loss of EUR 1.4 million in H1 FY24. So this means the losses are coming down significantly. It is to be noted that this is after the PPA write-off of EUR 1.4 million. We expect a growth of 9% on a full-year basis as against 10%, what we communicated earlier in the call. We expect a break-even on a full-year basis against the small profit, what we told in our previous calls. Please note that this would also mean a significant loss reduction compared to the last year. It is to be noted that these numbers are after the PPA write-off of EUR 2.8 million on a full-year basis. I'll move to Awuko. Awuko achieved a sales of EUR 5.3 million for the first half of the year. This is a growth of 18% compared to the last year's same period. For the quarter, Awuko delivered a sale of INR 2.2 million, which is 17% growth over the same period last year. Sequentially, it was lower by 26% compared to Q1 FY25. The losses before tax on H1 basis are at similar level as that of H1 FY24 at INR2.3 million. Operationally, Awuko improved their performance compared to the last year. We earlier communicated that Awuko would increase their yearly sales by INR8-INR10 million. We also said that Awuko would break even at EBITDA level and have a small loss of INR0.7-INR1 million by FY25. Currently, we feel at full year, Awuko would increase their sales around INR2 million. We expect an EBITDA loss of around INR4.5 million. The reason for not achieving the planned sales are product portfolio changes to more converted products and less jumbo rolls. This resulted in capacity constraint, higher lead times, and cost. Focus of customer business and target market did not develop as planned. Delays in achieving acceptable levels of quality. We are working on a strategy to improve Awuko's performance. I will share more details in the next six months. The current Q3 and Q4 we have fully covered, and I have explained. Beyond that, I will cover in the next six months when I come and meet you. Now, I'll cover the performance of profit before interest and tax. Consolidated abrasives PBIT for the first half of the year grew significantly to INR90 crores from INR68 crores in H1 FY24, representing a growth of 31%. This resulted in margins improving, being from 6.6% in H1 FY24 to 8.2% in H1 FY25. This was mainly due to standalone's PBIT growing at 13.3%, and Rhodius delivering a small PBIT compared to negative H1 FY24. Consolidated PBIT for Q2 FY25 was INR 34 crores, with a degrowth of 7.1% compared to Q2 FY24. This was due to PBIT degrowth in Sterling Abrasives, CUMI America, and Awuko. While compared with Q1 FY25, the PBIT was lower by INR 21 crores. This was mainly due to lower PBIT in Awuko by INR 5 crores, Rhodius by INR 9 crores, and standalone by INR 4 crores. Awuko was due to lower sales. Rhodius was due to lower sales, product mix, and the cost crores. I'll move to electrominerals. Consolidated sales in H1 FY25 was INR 783 crores, which is slightly lower by 1.6% compared to the same period last year. Standalone business and Foskor Zirconia showed growth compared to H1 FY24. VAW Russia in local currency delivered similar performance compared to the last year but had a small degrowth and converted to INR. Q2 FY25 sales was INR402 crores, with a growth of 6.5% compared to Q2 FY24. The growth was contributed by standalone, VAW, and Foskor. In comparison to Q1 FY25, sales grew by 5.6%. Standalone business and VAW showed growth, Foskor degrowth. Details of which I will cover in Foskor section. Standalone Electro Minerals. Standalone Q2 was INR210 crores. This is the highest quarterly sales. It is a 9.2% growth compared to Q2 FY25. This growth was aided by volume increase and higher price realizations. This growth was also because of the higher export sales. Compared to Q1 FY25, sales in this quarter grew by 11.2%. This growth was aided by volume increase and higher price realization. Sales for H1 FY25 was at INR 399 crores, with a growth of 2.4% compared to the same period last year. This growth was aided by marginal volume increase and a small increase in price realization. The other feature of the growth is higher export and volume growth in value-added products. VAW, the operations are running well, and the capacity utilizations are slightly better compared to the last year. Sales in local currency for Q2 FY25 degrew marginally by 1.7% compared to Q2 FY24, which I explained largely very, very small marginal degrowth, and grew 1% compared to Q1 FY25. They delivered a profit after tax of INR 466 million in Q2 FY25 against INR 413 million during the same period last year and INR 287 million in Q1 FY25. H1 FY25 profits were INR 753 million compared to INR 836 million during the same period last year. There was no major impact on exchange rate conversion in INR in comparison to last year. I'll move to Foskor. For the quarter, sales grew by 38% compared to Q2 FY24. This is predominantly coming out of the volume increase. However, compared to Q1 FY25, there was a drop of 32%. China dropping the price has impacted the volumes. First half of FY25 witnessed a volume growth of 26% compared to H1 FY24. However, the price realization dropped to an extent of 17%, resulting in a net sales growth of 9%. Foskor Zirconia in H1 FY25 incurred a loss of INR 14.7 crores compared to a loss of INR 6.1 crores in H1 FY24. The increase in loss is mainly on account of strengthening of the South African Rand against the U.S. dollar in this quarter by around 10%. We have now considered the pricing pressure in the market and rolled up H2 FY25 outlook. We feel Foskor Zirconia loss in H2 could be in the range of INR2 crores against H1 FY25 loss of INR14.7 crores. Overall, the full-year loss for FY24 was INR7.4 crores, and in FY25, we expect it could be in the range of INR16-INR17 crores. Now, I'll cover the performance of PBIT of this segment. Consolidated PBIT for Q2 FY25 was at INR58 crores. This was a growth of 33% compared to Q1 FY25. Standalone business and VAW contributed to this growth. In comparison to Q2 FY24, it was lower by 6.4%. This was mainly due to standalone and Foskor PBIT. PBIT margin at consolidated level was at 14.3% in Q2 FY25 compared to 11.4% in Q1 FY25 and 16.3% in Q2 FY24. In H1 FY25, PBIT was INR101 crores compared to INR136 crores in H1 FY24. This resulted in a margin decrease from 17% to 12.9%. Standalone electrominerals PBIT decreased from INR46 to INR38 crores. Drop is mainly due to pricing pressure in the market. The increase in PBIT loss in Foskor Zirconia to the extent of INR8 crores was mainly on account of strengthening of the South African Rand against dollar. VAW's PBIT dropped by INR18 crores due to the export duty, higher flight costs, etc. That's a broad reason for the swing. I'll move to ceramics section. Consolidated sales for H1 FY25 was INR549 crores compared to INR552 crores in H1 FY24. Q2 FY25 sales was INR280 crores compared to INR265 crores in Q2 FY24. The growth was contributed mainly by CUMI India and America. Compared to Q1 FY25, sales grew from INR270 crores to INR280 crores, that is 3.7%. Standalone business and CUMI Australia showed growth. Standalone ceramics Q2 sales was INR228 crores with a growth of 4.8% compared to Q2 FY24. This growth was aided by volume increase and higher price realization. Compared to Q1 FY25, sales in this quarter grew by 5.2%. This growth was mainly contributed by higher price realization. Sales for H1 FY25 was INR444 crores. This is lower by 0.8% compared to the same period last year. Fired and monorefractories, glass ceramics, and metallized cylinders business as standalone combined together grew at 14% compared to H1 FY24. Sales were lower in engineered ceramics and corrosion resistance business. CUMI America on H1 basis showed good growth, whereas CUMI Australia was marginally better compared to H1 of the last year. Now, I'll cover the PBIT of this segment. Consolidated PBIT for Q2 FY25 was ₹80 crores. This was a growth of 23% compared to Q1 FY25. This was contributed by double-digit PBIT growth in standalone, CUMI Australia, and VAW Russia. In comparison to Q2 FY24, there was a growth of 8%. This was mainly due to PBIT growth in standalone and VAW. PBIT margins in Q2 FY25 was at 28.45% compared to 24% in Q1 FY25 and 27.8% in Q2 FY24. Consolidated PBIT for H1 FY25 was INR144 crores compared to INR154 crores in H1 FY24. This resulted in margin decrease from 28% to 26.3% in H1 FY25. This was mainly due to standalone ceramics. Standalone ceramics PBIT decreased by 6.7% to INR111 crores on account of mix between industrial ceramics and refractories and product mix within the industrial ceramics. This covers the performance section. I'll also make a quick update on recent acquisition that we have made. We completed the acquisition of 100% stake in Silicon Carbide Products, a refractory product manufacturer based in Horseheads, at an enterprise value of INR 6.66 million. SCP specializes in manufacturing of high-quality nitride-bonded silicon carbide products and are widely recognized for their advanced firing and forming process. This acquisition aligns with our strategic expansion plan and offers synergies in the market access, technology capabilities, and raw material supply opportunities. Using SCP's expertise in furnace design, patterning, and tooling, CUMI aims to strengthen our offering in the Indian market, particularly in the critical thermal applications such as power, steel, and mining sectors. Additionally, we anticipate leveraging SCP's well-established customer base in America to introduce CUMI's product into industries such as glass, superalloys, petrochemicals, non-ferrous, and heat treatment. We expect to see further synergies, including potential to supply CUMI's grade of raw materials to SCP and to jointly develop new products and technologies. Additionally, this acquisition will almost double our NBSIC production capacity. SCP closed last year, that is calendar year 2023, with INR 4.2 million in revenue and INR 0.4 million in profit before tax, with a projection to double the revenue over the next five to six years based on the current estimated growth trajectory. We believe that the identified synergies could generate an additional $5 million in annual revenue by the end of this period. We are in the process of crystallizing specific synergy programs and will provide a more comprehensive update of our integration and synergies in the next six months. Now, I would request Sushil to cover the PBIT margin, debt positions, CapEx, cash flows, and ROC. Thank you. Thank you. So first, I'll speak about the PBIT margin. On an H1 basis, consolidated PBIT margin was at 12.7% compared to 12.8% in H1 24. This was majorly contributed by better performance in Abrasives segment. For the quarter, consolidated PBIT margin was at 12.8% compared to 12.6% in Q2 2024, as well as in Q1 2025. Now, standalone PBIT margin for H1 2025 was at 17.2% compared to 17.9% in H1 2024. For the quarter, standalone PBIT margin was at 16.4% compared to 17.2% in Q2 2024 and 18% in Q1 2025. Now, I'll share the segment specifics. Abrasives, consolidated PBIT margins of Abrasives on H1 basis improved from 6.6% to 8.2%, mainly because of standalone Abrasives margins improving from 16% to 16.9%. Rhodius is delivering small profit in H1 2025. For the quarter, consolidated Abrasives margin declined from 7.3% in Q2 2024 to 6.3% in Q2 2025. The margins dropped by 364 basis points compared to Q1 2025, which was contributed by a decline in standalone margins from 17.6% to 16.1%, increased losses in Awuko, and margins moving from positive to negative for Rhodius. Now, Electrominerals, consolidated PBIT margins of Electrominerals on an H1 basis declined from 17% to 12.9%. The standalone PBIT margin of H1 2025 was at 9.4% compared to 11.7% in H1 2024. This drop is mainly due to pricing pressures in the market. Also, losses increased in Foskor on an H1 basis, primarily on account of strengthening of the South African Rand against USD. For the quarter, consolidated Electrominerals margins declined from 16.3% in Q2 2024 to 14.3% in Q2 2025. Standalone Electrominerals PBIT margins decreased from 11.9% in Q2 2024 to 10.3% in Q2 2025. The drop is mainly due to pricing pressures in the market. The consolidated electrominerals margins improved by 296 basis points compared to Q1 of 2025, which was contributed primarily by improvement in margins of standalone and VAW. The standalone margins in Q2 2025 improved by 170 basis points compared to Q1 2025, mainly on account of better price realization. Ceramics. Consolidated ceramics margins improved from 27.8% in Q2 2024 to 28.5% in Q2 2025. Standalone ceramics PBIT margins improved from 26.2% in Q2 2024 to 27.2% in Q2 2025. In comparison to Q1 2025, the PBIT margins improved by 449 basis points, which was contributed by improvement in margins of standalone and CUMI Australia. The standalone margins improved from 22.7% to 27.2% on account of higher price realization and favorable product mix. The consolidated PBIT margins of ceramics on an H1 basis declined from 28% to 26.3%, primarily due to standalone performance. Standalone margins decreased from 26.6% to 25% due to mix between industrial ceramics and refractories and product mix within industrial ceramics. Now, I'll speak about the debt position. There was no debt in our standalone books, and total debt at the consolidated basis was at 103 crores at the end of Q2 2025, compared to 140 crores at the end of Q2 2024 and 112 crores at the end of Q1 2025. The debt-to-equity ratio was at 0.03 at the consolidated level. CapEx during H1 of 2025, our CapEx investment was ₹124 crores at the consolidated level. Return on capital employed for H1 2025, the return on capital employed at a consolidated level is 17% compared to 19% during the same period last year, and at a standalone level, it is at 19.3% compared to 21.5%. For the consolidated business, the ROCE in H1 2025 for abrasives improved from 10.2% to 12.3%, while ceramics has declined from 51.7% to 44%, and electrominerals has decreased from 31.7% to 19.4%. For the standalone businesses, ROCE for H1 2025 for abrasives has marginally decreased from 41.3% to 41%, while ceramics has declined from 54.9% to 46.8%, and electrominerals has decreased from 31.3% to 21.5%. Now, I'll speak about the unallocable expenses. At a standalone level, the unallocable expenses in Q2 2025 were at INR17.6 crores, which is similar to the unallocable expense in Q2 2024. In Q1 2025, the unallocable income was INR0.7 crores. This is primarily due to dividend receipts in Q1 2025. On an H1 2025 basis, unallocable expenses were INR16.9 crores, lower by INR6.1 crores compared to the same period last year, primarily due to higher interest income in H1 2025. At a consolidated level, unallocable expenses for Q2 25 were INR 11.2 crores compared to Q2 24. Unallocable expenses were lower by INR14.7 crores, primarily due to higher interest income in Q2 25, exchange loss in receipt of dividends from VAW in Q2 25, higher project-related costs in Q2 24, and lower spend in Q2 25. Compared to Q1 25, the unallocable expenses were almost flat. On the half-year basis, unallocable expenses at the consolidated level were INR23.4 crores, lower by INR28.2 crores compared to H1 24, primarily due to higher interest income in H1 25, exchange loss in receipt of dividend from VAW booked in H1 24, which is not there in H1 25, higher project-related costs in H1 24, and lower expenses in H1 25. Now, I request Mr. Sridharan to take you through the next section related to the future outlook. Thank you. Thank you, Sushil. I'll just make a quick overview of what we said last time versus where we stand after looking at the first half. We communicated that our full-year consolidated sales could be 9%-11%. On the consolidated sales, it could be INR5,100-INR5,200 crores. We maintain the same. In consolidated abrasives, we expect a growth of 10% as against 11%-12%, what we communicated earlier. This shortfall is mainly coming from Awuko. We communicated during our last call a growth of INR8 million-INR10 million from Awuko. Currently, we feel that full-year Awuko could rise their sales around INR2 million. Abrasives India growth would be 9%-11%, which is as communicated to you earlier. Rhodius is doing well in H1 FY 25. Rhodius has delivered a growth of 11.6% in Indian rupees. We communicated earlier a growth of 10% on a full-year basis can be expected. We feel it could be 9%-10%. We communicated about sales growth of 12%-14% in consolidated ceramic segment. We maintain the same. For industrial ceramics business in India, we communicated about a growth projection of 13%-15%. We expect some shortfall in India and ceramic segment. This would lead to around 12% year-on-year growth, 1% lower than what we communicated. CUMI Australia and CUMI America are doing fine. Refractory, we are confident of delivering 12%-13% growth over last year on the back of a strong order books, which is also similar to what we communicated. We communicated about sales growth of 5%-6% in consolidated electromineral segment. We maintain the same.VAW is expected to deliver a similar performance to last year. This is what we have planned and what we communicated to you. Growth from standalone business is expected to be about 10% growth, as said in the previous call. For Foskor, H1 FY 25 did not go as per our plan. They were impacted due to pricing pressure in the market and strengthening of the South African Rand against dollar. We expect H2 25 to be better than H1 FY 25. On the PBIT performance, we communicated that consolidated PBIT margins would be in the range of 13.7%-13.8%. We expect it to drop by 100 basis points. This is mainly coming from underperformance by Awuko in abrasives and Foskor Zirconia in electrominerals. We said that consolidated abrasives margins will improve by 100 basis points in FY 25. We expect margins to be similar to that of FY 24. Ceramic margins will be similar to that of FY 24. We maintain the same. We said that consolidated electrominerals margins will improve by 20 to 30 basis points in FY 25. We expect margins to decrease by 150 to 200 basis points from FY 24. This is mainly coming from standalone, which is facing cost push and price realization pressure, and Foskor Zirconia, which is facing pricing pressure. On CapEx side, we said that we would spend around INR 350 crores on a full-year basis. So far, we have spent INR 124 crores. We feel that we would be spending about INR 300 crores in FY 25. To sum up on the whole, we expect the top line to be INR 5,100-INR 5,200 crores. We expect PAT to be about 500 crores. We would be spending around INR 300 crores of CapEx. We will be debt-free. While delivering the current business, we would have prepared a strategic plan for the future of CUMI. We will share about this more in the future. With this, I will end my opening remark, and thank you all for hearing this out. We will now open up for your question and answer. Thank you. Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touch-tone telephone. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Participants are requested to use handsets while asking a question. Ladies and gentlemen, we will wait for a moment while the question queue assembles. First question is from the line of Ravi Swaminathan from Avendus Spark. Please go ahead. Thanks for taking my question. My first question is with respect to the ceramics and refractory segment. You had talked about reasonably good growth coming in for the engineered ceramics and rare ceramics, etc. If you could give more granular details as to which are the sectors which are driving the growth for these subsegments as of now? There was one large customer from whom business was impacted. How is the path to recovery over there? If you can talk about these two segments and also refractories, what is driving growth there? How is the demand from certain sectors like glass, carbon black, steel, etc.? If you can talk about that, that's the case. Thank you for your question. So to start with, I would say the customer that we had impact of slower growth is picking up, and the trajectory of what we communicated is very much on track. So that is under control. As we communicated, we said that calendar year 2025, which is what they would focus on, the pickup will be much more. Right now, their trajectory is very much on track. We are traveling as per earlier communicated. No issues. As far as the growth in ceramics and refractories, all the normal sectors that we are addressing have witnessed a growth, and we are seeing robust demand for each of them, whether it is cement, steel, carbon black, chemical industries, power distribution. All these sectors, we are seeing good demand both in India as well as overseas, which is what is driving the performance of them. To sum it up, I think the demand drivers are largely coming from various industries that we saw. The metallized cylinder segment, we kind of think of it as growing like a 15% kind of segment, I mean, maintaining kind of growth sustainably over the next two, three years. So I think we gathered the ceramic business growth, as I summed up, around 12%-15% growth. I would expect a similar type of growth continued because, see, it is a mix of various products or segments which are there, whether it is wire, metallics, engineered, fired refractories, mono, proto-rights business. All put together is a basket of this. So I would assume that that kind of a trajectory of growth should be expected. Understood. My last question is with respect to the competition in abrasives and electrominerals that you had talked about in the past Q2,3, especially Chinese competition and in abrasives competition from the wind companies, etc. How do you see that panning out? Is it same level as it intensified, or has it come off? So as far as the competition is focused on electrominerals first, that is, I think, as far as Foskor Zirconia is concerned, the competition from Chinese is severe, and their pricing pressure is very much on. So that is what is pulling their sales also down, as well as the impact on their margins. As far as India is concerned, I think we see that so far we are able to pass on the cost increase that we are getting to the market, and we will have to wait and see how the second half would pan out from the Chinese competition. We expect they would also face a similar cost pressure because it is a global pressure that everyone is facing. So obviously, there would be their reactions to that also. But nevertheless, it is difficult to gauge how the Chinese would react. But we are working cautiously in terms of explaining things to our customer. They understand where the cost drivers are coming from, and they are in a position to pass on the cost increase that we are getting. And as far as the abrasives, yeah, as far as the abrasives paint, it's a very small sector, as you know I was also alluding to. It's a very specialized small sector that they were focusing on compared to the whole range of abrasive products. I think that is continuing and probably with kind of many pressures that the paint industry is going through. The focus is on their core industry than I would say focusing on the abrasives at this point in time. Understood, sir. Yeah. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Harshad Patel from Equirus Securities. Please go ahead. Thank you very much for the opportunity, sir. My first question is on our abrasive subsidiaries. So why was the performance at CUMI America weak in the Q2 of FY 25? If I remember correctly, the performance was weak in the Q1 of FY 25 as well, as the sales had declined both YoY as well as QoQ. And similarly for the Sterling Abrasives as well. Now the performance has been weak for the two consecutive quarters. Anything specific you would like to highlight on both these? Sure. So I think could you repeat the second question on Sterling? Yes. Similarly, the Sterling Abrasives performance has also been pretty weak for the two consecutive quarters. On one hand, the agro-processing market is doing fairly well, going by the commentary of other peers operating in the same segment. So anything specific you would like to highlight on both sales as well as margins here? Right. No, that's a good commentary from you, Harshad. I think as far as Sterling is concerned, I think they were impacted largely from one particular product segment called Cone Polishers, which removes the husk from the rice and paddy. That is what is their business. And because of a government policy change, which expects a certain percentage of rice to be returned post-de-husking process, that cannot be maintained, which is probably very high, and cannot be maintained by any millers at this point in time. So the millers have stopped pretty much, at least on the two states, which is Punjab and Haryana. Now this has stopped. That is the result of slowdown, which is what has caused Sterling Abrasives business slowdown, which I think probably will get corrected post-policy changes, etc. It would happen. As far as CUMI America is concerned, I think, see, they had a very good business. Even at this point in time, they are doing well. Largely, the dependence on one customer, which has shifted their facility from US to Latin America, and that shift has caused. It would take a year for them to stabilize because they had quite a lot of inventory at this point in time, which is going to be currently consumed. If I remove that customer and start looking at their growth, it's really good. So there will be a blip, which I think we very well understand. It will get back. We have invested in people in USA, three new headcounts whereas it's a focused market. I think it will come back very nicely. We are confident of getting it back. Understood. Sure. So my second question is on Awuko and Rhodius. So what is the end-user industry mix for both these companies? As in what percentage of sales are derived from automobile, construction, general engineering, retail, etc., over there? So as far as Awuko is concerned, it is leather and wood are the two major industry segments that they serve. There is also a few other small segments, but these are the two ones. As far as Rhodius is concerned, it serves a wide range of industries. Industries including construction, infrastructure related to this. This is largely a Thin Wheels, and Thin Wheels has got a wider application in very many industries. These are the industries they serve. The focus or the concentration on automobile industry is not very high over there? No, not very high. Understood. Just a small question, if I can squeeze it. You have decreased your CAPEX guidance by close to ₹50 crore from ₹350 crore earlier to ₹300 crore. So is this just the postponement of the CAPEX or some CAPEX structurally we are not going to do at all? So if you can give some. Timing difference? No postponement. All CAPEX will be. This one is because of some starting delays, some timing differences. I'm just giving that guidance. Otherwise, it will be very much on whatever we plan, we will spend on each of these critical CAPEX. Understood. Thank you very much, sir, for answering my questions and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. A reminder to all participants that you may press star and one to ask a question. The next question is from the line of Bhoomika Nair from DAM Capital Advisors. Please go ahead. Yeah. So just a couple of clarifications. Let me start with electrominerals. Now, while Foskor has seen a weaker than anticipated performance, but if I look at it on a standalone basis, last two, Q3 was weak, and we started seeing some improvement in the current quarter. And if I remember, earlier you had mentioned that there was some dumping by the Chinese, right? Both BFA and WFA prices had also fallen, which was impacting WFA. So if you can just comment on that, while the pain seems to sustain in Foskor, how there seems to be some improvement on standalone as also in WFA? If you can just throw some light on that aspect. So I think as far as India domestic pricing pressure and competition from China is concerned, no change. It is the same. If you look at it, I think our pickup in margin is largely volume plus also a mix which helped us to pick up this margin, which is 8.5% moving to 10.3%. We expect the cost pressure, which is largely coming out of the alumina's prices going up, is impacting most of the electromineral products, which are white and brown fused alumina's going through at this point in time. And to that extent, I would say we will see this pricing pressure. We are trying our best to pass on in the market, but China competition is a bit unpredictable. The logic of why would they price differently, God alone knows at this point in time because when you have a global alumina cost increase, which is very well known, everyone can read and comment about that. But at this point in time, this is what we have seen. As far as the SiC competition from China is very mild, I wouldn't put it the way that what we are seeing here in India. Okay. So also in terms of within EMD, we were looking at high-performance materials, and we are setting up the HPSiC plant. If you can just comment on that, where are we in terms of the construction? When does the plant get commissioned? How can we see scale-up of that plant over the next few years while it will get operational soon? But more from a scale-up perspective because it's a smaller project right now, what is the feedback that you're getting from the market? How quickly can we scale it up? Will it be a long-term process to scale it up, or can we kind of scale it up much faster? So some thoughts on that, sir. So first of all, the project is very much on track as far as the HPSiC is concerned. We expect the first off of we talked about December 25 is where we said we will have the full utilization will start happening as far as this project is concerned. We expect could be much earlier than that, but I think let's still maintain the same guideline as what we told. We expect, as you rightly observed, this is a small project. We expect establishing the products to start with. This is what we are currently trying to do. We have seeded this. We have sent some of the products to a few geographies where we are getting reasonably good feedback. And we will wait to share with you more as we progress on that. So far, so good. I think it looks interesting at this point in time. Okay. Okay. And what about the other areas like, say, graphene or graphite or anything else to materially talk about any progress or maybe if you can talk about how large can this whole specialty piece become over the next two, three years? Any thoughts on that? Yeah. No, I think that's what I meant in my closing remark. We would be sharing some of these details in the next six months as we are working on the long-term strategy on each of these areas that you talked about plus a few more areas that we have listed as well. We will share that. At this point in time, I'm not in a position to share this. Sure. Sure. So on ceramics, how should we look at in terms of the margin profile? And you too we are working on a lot of technical ceramics aspect of the entire business. So how is that share kind of scaling up if you can throw some light on in terms of what are technical ceramics as a percentage of the segment revenues and what it is today and what it can possibly get to so that we understand how the margins might scale up? And if you can also talk about the metallized cylinders capacity, where are we in terms of utilization? Any plans to further expand capacity out there? Right. So I think as far as the programs in ceramics side is concerned, all of them have hit the ground. Construction is in full swing, whether it is a ceramic for semiconductors or in ceramic for defense is very much on, and we are progressing as per the schedule. We have also looked at a few other areas within ceramics. We expect ceramics margins could go up based on these types of newer opportunities, but I am not in a position to share what kind of a growth, etc. But I would say the current profile of margins that we are seeing should continue, should improve as we start bringing these newer ones, which is what I said that step one for this year is delivering the ₹5,100 crores-₹5,200 crores is what our current trajectory. And in six months' time, maybe we will share a brief profile of what are all the initiatives that we are looking at in each of these segments what we plan to do. That we will be able to share and maybe give some more color to these types of growth and margins, etc., and where these growths will come from. As far as the metallized cylinders capacity is concerned, I think we are very well operating capacities. We should be in the range of about 80% plus capacity utilization, and I feel that we may be in a position to increase depending on through de-bottlenecking, etc. I think we are very much on track. Okay. So I'll come back in the question too. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Bhavin Vithlani from SBI Mutual Fund. Please go ahead. Yep. Good morning, gentlemen. Good morning. Could you just help us with the ceramics breakup between three factories, the one which is supplying to SOFC, and the growth that we have seen in the first half, how the mix has changed, which, as you're highlighting, some mix changes led to margin upside. That's my first question. Bhavin, generally, we are not sharing the mix of ceramic and refractory within the ceramic segment as well as the individual subsegment in the various elements of it. But what I can share is that some of the product that we are looking at in terms of compared to last year versus this year, the share of, let's say, an engineered ceramics has picked up compared to the last year, which is why one of the margin pickup has happened. Similarly, I would say a few other subsegments involved in that, like for example, it could be fired refractories share has also picked up. These are individual things which probably contributes to margin pickup, if I can share with you. Sure. Just to follow up on the ceramics, globally, when we look through the commentary of the larger grid equipment manufacturers like Siemens, ABB, and Hitachi, they are delivering 20-plus% growth in an industry which is used to 2% regularly. And CUMI, I understand, has a significant market position in the ceramics for the switchgear application. Could you just help us understand the kind of growth? Also is more than 20%. Okay. And what would be our capacity utilization in this segment? Are we looking at expansion in this segment? So I was just answering this to Bhoomika. We are in the range of about 80% plus. We can improve our capacity utilization. A few de-bottlenecking can help us. We are not constrained at this stage by capacity as far as growth is concerned. Okay. The greenfield expansion or the significant, I mean, expansion that we are looking in the ceramic segment, is the metallized cylinder part of it, or the expansion is largely into the other applications like defense, as you highlighted? The expansion is more on the engineered ceramic side, which is one for supplying to semiconductor fab equipment. That is the first area of expansion. The second is in the production of vehicles, that is defense vehicles, which is armor as well as the body. That is the second area of expansion. Third would be some substrate-based expansion, which I have not mentioned in my CapEx program, but this is not on the ground. It will come in future, but I think these are areas of our expansions. Sure. On the subsidiaries of Abrasives, especially the German ones, you highlighted that auto is not a larger individual industry, but auto has a ripple effect on the broader economy. The kind of targets that you had set while we had acquired of getting to 11% EBIT level, would you believe that they are now getting pushed out? And what is the effort that we are looking at in terms of greater level of supply of raw material and also expansion within Europe for these two entities for us to achieve that 11% EBIT target? So as far as the Rhodius is concerned, we feel that it is still possible, and we are progressing to what we have been alluding to. I don't see any issues on that. Where we are seeing issue, which is on Awuko, which we have not given any cadence like what you just said, but in general, I'm answering is Awuko is a concern for us where we said we could grow at least 8-10 million EUR in this year. The growth is only 2 million EUR. This is where I said that for the next Q2, we are feeling that this is possible to achieve. But beyond that, we will take six months to get back in terms of what programs that we will have on Awuko to get back to both growth and profitability. Sure. Just lastly, on the Russia piece, I actually missed the numbers. If you could just help us give the data on what was the revenue and the profits in ruble terms for the Russian entity. I did not share the revenue when I covered, but I did cover the profitability. I will share that. So they delivered a profit after tax of 486 million RUB in Q2 of FY25 against 413 million RUB for the same period last year. And the EBITDA basis, they delivered 753 million RUB compared to 836 million RUB same period last year. Sure. Yeah. Thank you so much. These are my questions. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Bhavin. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Saurabh Gujjar from ICICI Prudential AMC. Please go ahead. Thank you for the opportunity, sir. So my question is just on the cash flows and balance sheet. One at FY25 had a lower cash flow conversion. If you look at the current assets, inventory has a substantial increase, as well as if you look at other financial assets and other current assets, they have seen an increase. Any specifics you can highlight in which segments, say Abrasives or Ceramics, is causing this? No, no. I think you observed very diligently, I would say. I think free cash flow is a concern, and we will get back correcting some of these areas. So the billing pattern, which is a Q2, most of what we have done is highest in Electrominerals, highest in Ceramics, highest as a company. And hence, the receivables or the working capital growth is on the higher side, which is what you are seeing here. We will get back to normalcy in H2. So we will get to a normal FCF targets that we are looking at in full year basis. But H1, yes, we have missed the FCF target. Yeah. Specifically on inventories, if you can highlight, there also is an increase. So is this an inventory RM-led phenomenon or more finished goods only? Similarly, you highlighted for creative shapes, right? It is mostly a raw material-led phenomenon where some of the materials inventory have piled up, largely because we wanted to have this as a preparation for the H2, and we are also expecting some price increases in aluminas, etc. So we also have ordered some of these materials in advance. So those are the reason for the inventory pile-up. Sure. Thank you and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Jaspreet from Clockvine Capital. Please go ahead. Hi, sir. Thanks for taking my question. So how have exports done in the first half? What are the product segments and geographies which are driving exports? Exports have done well, both for electrominerals as well as for ceramics. Abrasives had a small challenge. I would not put any color to this at this point. The geographies are largely Europe and America. Got it, sir. And so what are your plans for integrating Indian manufacturing with your European acquisitions? Have you been able to see new product segments manufactured into your European business? And how has been the experience so far? We have worked on one particular product line where what Rhodius used to outsource from other manufacturers, where we are able to manufacture to the quality standards and the cost expectation, which is what we have now established. That's one product line that we are able to do that. We will look at scaling up, etc., as we progress on that. Then we also would like to think another area of cooperation is we shared that one customer's capacity getting relocated to India, which is one of the key programs which will incorporate some of the technologies used in Rhodius would be adopted here for that line. So that will come, but that is FY27 type of completion as far as the project is concerned. Got it, sir. So in this one product segment where you have started manufacturing in India for Rhodius, what has been the cost reduction that you have achieved in the sense that if Rhodius was earlier buying the same product at, let's say, INR 100, now what is the price right now at which they're buying from your Indian operations? So right now, I can share that we are able to meet their cost expectations. Got it. So broadly, what you're trying to say is that you are supplying to them at the same price as they were sourcing earlier? No, I said that their cost expectations. Got it, sir. Thank you. That's all from me. Thank you. Thank you. The last question is from the line of Aditya Mongia from Kotak Securities. Please go ahead. Thank you for the opportunity. My first question was more on the competitive angle perspective. Wanted to get a sense of across your segments, where is Chinese competition versus where it was pre-COVID? I understand that there was a period when you would have benefited. I'm just trying to get a sense of what is pre-COVID period, where is Chinese competition at this point of time across your segments? So Chinese competition is there everywhere in every product line. You can't single out in one area. It is there everywhere, right? Whether it is electrominerals or Abrasives, whether it is India or South Africa, all these product groups and the countries have been witnessing the Chinese competition. Now, to your question in terms of pre-COVID versus the post-COVID or during the COVID versus the now, I think the dynamics, I would say, what are all the things that is changing at this point in time is, I mean, look, I'm not an expert on China, but I'm just sharing what I learned is there is a demand level in China which makes them to sell or export to other countries, and perhaps their cost has no basis at this point in time. We do not know. We only feel that. I hope they don't sell at a cash loss, which might also happen, is what we are hearing at this point. So there is, to some extent, these type of phenomenon which most of the industries, and I am telling clearly, this is not just our industry. It is many industries are facing from China. So this is what I would say at this point in time. I can broadly share. Understood. The second question that I had was more on high-purity silicon carbide and its application on the semiconductor side. As in, when you think through what you want to do in that segment, what are the key kind of imponderables? Electric vehicles, the key application in that context, the share of 800-volt charging systems becoming more prominent, the single biggest driver. I just wanted to get a sense of how do you think through your relevance in that segment? What are the key demand drivers? And second part of the question was, how would CUMI's product compare to that of competition? If you could comment on these two aspects, sir. Yeah. So I think so today, the semiconductor products are made either out of silicon or silicon carbide, and the devices made out of each of them have their own place. Of course, there's also gallium nitride is another product. Similar to gallium nitride, a few other products are also available. And each of them are playing in depending on the temperature as well as the switch. They are getting adopted to the type of material that you would use. Plus, the other factor is the cost. What we are seeing is that, and which is a global phenomenon that is happening, is SiC is preferred choice of these semiconductor devices because of the high-temperature application that some of these you just mentioned in your question. Hence, the preference to SiC-based devices. Hence, the requirement of high-purity silicon carbide. So this is the logic of the demand growth. As far as our product is concerned, we are competitive at high-end level, and we have fed some of these applications to the select manufacturers of these devices in their own application. So it looks like it is performing, and hence, there's the trial orders that we've started seeding these trial orders at this stage. So that is probably the best at this stage I can share. Maybe just a last question on this part, and that would be all from my side. Typically, ceramics have had a profile of a larger overseas kind of share of business versus domestic. Do you believe the same would hold true for silicon carbide as well? And in that context, can it become a business that is sizable, maybe 3% or more of your entire consolidated? Can that be a possibility for the next two to three years? So to start with, silicon carbide is the biggest overseas business for us. Our capacity in Russia is about 80,000-85,000 tons, whereas our capacity in India is about 10,000 tons. So we have a significant overseas share as far as the silicon carbide is concerned. Perhaps your question, if I have to assume that it is on high-purity silicon carbide. High-purity silicon carbide is a nascent venture at this point in time, very small, and most of these capacities could be consumed outside of India. Got it. Thank you for the color and all the very best to you. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question for today. I would now like to hand the conference over to Ms. Bhoomika Nair from DAM Capital for closing comments. Yeah. I would just like to thank everyone and particularly the management for giving us the opportunity to host the call. Thank you very much, sir, and wish you all the very best. Great. Thank you. And I think thank you for your patience hearing. I would like to summarize one small comment is that we are trying to deliver INR 5,100-5,200 crores. We expect the PAT to be around INR 500 crores. CapEx program would be INR 300 crores. We'll be a debt-free company. We would have also prepared a strategic program by then in the next six months. So we created a good delivering the current. We will also prepare a good future and which we will share at an appropriate time. Thank you. Thank you. On behalf of DAM Capital Advisors Limited, that concludes this conference. Thanks for joining us, and you may now disconnect your line.