▶ Full Post Text
BCCL/BHARATCOAL: ₹135 cr coal-reject valuation is not just an audit query — it is a shareholder-interest issue.
**Public-source BCCL / BHARATCOAL investor update**
A Dainik Jagran, Dhanbad Edition News clipping (dated 12.09.2026) reports that **CAG/statutory auditors questioned** BCCL’s valuation of old “reject coal” that had earlier been carried at zero value, but was later included in FY2025-26 inventory at **₹135.15 crore**.
A PSU Watch report also says BCCL booked years-old coal rejects at **₹135.15 crore** in FY2025-26, and that CAG questioned how the valuation rates were arrived at.
The key shareholder issue is this:
**This is not merely a technical accounting point. It may be detrimental to shareholder interests if the ₹135.15 crore inventory value is not supported by actual realisable value.**
I am not saying actual shareholder loss is already established. But the **risk to shareholder interest is quantifiable** because the amount is material versus BCCL’s FY26 earnings and cash-flow position.
**Why this matters to shareholders?**
BCCL/BHARATCOAL’s FY26 numbers show:
• Sales: **₹13,645 crore**
• Operating profit: **-₹493 crore**
• PBT: **₹149 crore**
• PAT: **₹128 crore**
• Operating cash flow: **-₹641 crore**
• Free cash flow: **-₹1,239 crore**
• Debtor days: **77 days**, up from **42 days** in FY25
Against these numbers, the reported **₹135.15 crore** reject-coal inventory value equals:
**• 0.99% of FY26 sales**
**• 90.7% of FY26 PBT**
**• 105.6% of FY26 PAT**
So it is small versus revenue, but very large versus profit.
That is why the issue can be framed as a **shareholder-interest concern**: if this inventory value is not recoverable through actual sale, auction, lifting, billing and cash collection, then the downside could affect asset quality, future write-down risk, reported net worth, and investor confidence in inventory accounting.
**The realisation gap is the core question**
The clipping/report says actual sale from Bhojudih reject coal was around **₹377/tonne**, while some old reject lots were reportedly valued at around **₹410–₹695/tonne**.
That gap does not prove overvaluation by itself. Coal-reject quality can vary by lot.
But for shareholders, the fair question is:
**What exact lot-wise parameters justified valuing some old reject coal above the reported ₹377/tonne sale benchmark — grade, ash, moisture, age, saleability, reserve price, or actual market demand?**
**Why this may be detrimental to shareholder interests**
The possible detriment is not emotional or political. It is a financial pathway:
**Reported audit question → uncertainty over recoverable inventory value → possible mismatch between book value and market realisation → possible future write-down or lower recovery → weaker asset quality / lower earnings confidence → shareholder-interest impact.**
For example, even a **10% shortfall** on ₹135.15 crore would be about **₹13.5 crore**, which is roughly **10.6% of FY26 PAT**.
A **25% shortfall** would be about **₹33.8 crore**, roughly **26.4% of FY26 PAT**.
A **50% shortfall** would be about **₹67.6 crore**, roughly **52.8% of FY26 PAT**.
These are not forecasts. They are sensitivity checks showing why shareholders should care.
**Cash-flow angle**
This matters more because FY26 operating cash flow was **negative ₹641 crore** and free cash flow was **negative ₹1,239 crore**.
So the investor question is not only whether inventory was valued correctly on paper.
The bigger question is whether old reject coal actually converts into:
**auction sale → lifting → billing → receivable recovery → cash collection.**
**If it does**, the concern reduces.
**If it does not**, shareholders may be carrying accounting value without equivalent cash recovery.
**Disclosure question**
I did not find a specific NSE/BSE clarification on this coal-reject valuation issue in the checked web results as of **12 Sep 2026, 08:52 IST**, subject to direct exchange-portal verification. Recent announcement summaries visible on Screener covered other Regulation 30 items, including management change, August production, exchange fines and DGMS blasting stoppage, but not a coal-reject valuation clarification.
**So the shareholder questions are:**
1) What was the exact basis for the **₹135.15 crore** inventory value?
2) How much of this reject stock has actually been sold, lifted, billed and collected?
3) Why were some lots valued above the reported **₹377/tonne** realised sale benchmark?
4) Did this accounting treatment affect FY26 profit, net worth or only inventory classification?
5) Has the company issued any exchange clarification, auditor response or lot-wise valuation note?
**Bottom line**
On the current source base, actual shareholder loss is **not established**.
But a **quantifiable risk of detriment to shareholder interests is established** because:
• the reported amount is material versus FY26 PBT and PAT;
• the value is inventory/accounting value, not confirmed cash collection;
• FY26 cash flow was already negative;
• debtor days worsened;
• and the reported sale benchmark appears below some of the valuation rates used for old reject lots.
This makes it a legitimate shareholder-discussion issue, not just a local news item.
**Source line:** Attached Dainik Jagran, Dhanbad Edition clipping dated 12.09.2026; PSU Watch report dated 25 Aug 2026; financial numbers from Screener company page.
**Disclaimer:** Not investment advice. I am not recommending any buy, sell, hold, short, exit, average, or entry decision. This is a public-source update for discussion among shareholders and market participants. Corrections, official filings, company clarifications or auction-result links are welcome.