Exicom Tele-Sys. announces a new order win

Exicom has not separately disclosed the CAPEX required for the liquid-cooled power-module manufacturing line. The closest reported figure is company-wide TTM CAPEX of Rs 199.69 Crores on a consolidated basis for Q4 FY26, but this includes all capital expenditure and cannot be attributed specifically to the liquid-cooled line. ^[1]

What the filings support

• Project-specific outlay: Not separately reported for the liquid-cooled power-module line. The IPO-related material refers generally to manufacturing expansion, product development and corporate purposes, without identifying a line-level project cost. ^[2]
• Company-wide CAPEX: Consolidated TTM CAPEX was Rs 199.69 Crores in Q4 FY26. The standalone figure was Rs 104.74 Crores; these are different consolidation bases and should not be added. ^{[1] [3]}
• Investment in assets: Consolidated capital work-in-progress declined from Rs 116.73 Crores in Q2 FY26 to Rs 0.32 Crores in Q4 FY26, while property, plant and equipment increased from Rs 159.02 Crores to Rs 324.79 Crores over the same reported periods. ^{[4] [5]} This is consistent with substantial project commissioning or capitalization, but the filings do not identify the liquid-cooled line as the beneficiary.
• IPO capacity baseline: The IPO materials describe three Indian manufacturing facilities with annual capacity of 12,000 DC power systems and 44,400 AC and DC fast chargers, across 134,351.95 sq. ft. of built-up area. ^[6]

Analytical read

The investment appears directionally consistent with Exicom’s broader manufacturing and product-portfolio expansion, particularly because the company’s disclosed capacity base covers power systems and EV charging equipment. However, the evidence does not establish a quantitative bridge between the liquid-cooled module line and the IPO capacity figures:

1. no separate project CAPEX; 2. no disclosed incremental module capacity; 3. no commissioning date or utilization target for that line; and 4. no subsequent quarterly disclosure linking the increase in PPE or reduction in CWIP to liquid-cooled modules.

Accordingly, Rs 199.69 Crores should be treated as a consolidated company-wide CAPEX reference point, not as the outlay for the liquid-cooled manufacturing line. The line’s specific cost and its contribution to capacity expansion remain undisclosed.

Verdict: Exicom’s locally manufactured module appears technically superior to the conventional imported-module benchmark on efficiency, thermal management and environmental protection. However, the “first in India” claim is narrow: it establishes local manufacture of liquid-cooled AC/DC power modules, not a proven lower purchase price, fully domestic component sourcing, or quantified cost savings versus every imported alternative ^[7].

Technical comparison

Cost structure

The cost advantage is not yet demonstrated at the module-unit level.

• Fixed-cost burden: Exicom reportedly spent approximately USD 3.5 million over nearly two years developing the technology ^[14]. The Hyderabad facility involved an investment of Rs 216 Crores ^[17]. These are upfront development and manufacturing-platform costs, not the cost of an individual module.
• Variable-cost trajectory: Exicom’s management expects manufacturing economics to improve as Indian shipments scale, but has not disclosed current domestic manufacturing cost, imported landed cost, BOM savings or module gross margin ^[14].
• Import substitution: The local module should reduce dependence on overseas sourcing over time, but industry research still describes high-power semiconductor modules and magnetics as largely imported, while reporting 75–85% localisation for the broader off-board charger category rather than for the power-module BOM specifically ^[15].
• Operating cost: Exicom describes liquid-cooled modules as costing less to operate over their lifetime, supported by lower thermal stress, continuous-load capability and higher efficiency ^[7]. This is a total-cost-of-ownership claim, not a disclosed rupee saving.
• Foreign-exchange exposure: Exicom’s consolidated Q1 FY27 gross margin was reportedly pressured by exchange-rate volatility and component-cost increases ^[18]. Local sourcing could reduce that exposure, although the impact on module economics has not been quantified.

Implication: The economic proposition is currently stronger on energy loss, thermal resilience and supply-chain control than on proven upfront cost. Local manufacturing may ultimately improve gross margin through scale and lower import dependence, but the first phase likely carries meaningful R&D, validation, tooling and utilisation costs.

Named domestic companies

Company-specific evidence does not establish that the following entities currently use imported high-capacity DC fast-charging power modules, nor does it provide comparable module specifications or costs.

Exicom Tele-Systems

Exicom is the only company in the cited material with a directly documented liquid-cooled module programme. Its module achieves up to 99% efficiency, uses SiC power electronics and is initially supporting Tritium’s export chargers ^[14]. Its earlier high-end module supply was imported from overseas partners ^[16].

Bajel Projects

The high-capacity DC fast-charging module architecture, import mix, efficiency and module cost are not separately disclosed in the cited material.

KP Green Engineering

The high-capacity DC fast-charging module architecture, import mix, efficiency and module cost are not separately disclosed in the cited material.

Danish Power

The high-capacity DC fast-charging module architecture, import mix, efficiency and module cost are not separately disclosed in the cited material.

Jyoti Structures

The high-capacity DC fast-charging module architecture, import mix, efficiency and module cost are not separately disclosed in the cited material.

Indosolar

The high-capacity DC fast-charging module architecture, import mix, efficiency and module cost are not separately disclosed in the cited material.

Bottom line: Exicom has a clear disclosed specification advantage over the generic 95–96%-efficient conventional-module benchmark, but there is no evidence yet for a direct rupee-per-kW cost advantage over imported modules or for a quantified technical gap versus each domestic competitor. The key validation points will be steady-state utilisation of the Hyderabad line, local semiconductor content, module yield, realised cost per kW, and adoption in Exicom’s domestic Harmony charger range.