Field composites
Karthik 47 years · VP Strategy, Tier-1 semi-fab JV · Tata Electronics + PSMC comparable
Karthik sits in the strategy chair of a greenfield semiconductor fabrication joint venture — one of the first announced under the DLI + semiconductor PLI framework. The scheme promises a 50% fiscal support on capital expenditure. The investment commitment: ₹22,000 crore over five years. The first disbursement tranche is conditional on milestone verification by a designated government technical agency.
His decision architecture: when does the next capex tranche get sanctioned against an incentive that arrives 18–24 months after the spend? The milestone certification process requires a physical verification visit, technical audit by a notified agency, inter-ministerial sign-off, and then treasury release. In the composite modelled scenario, the first milestone claim was filed in Q2 FY26. The disbursement cleared in Q4 FY27. The interest cost on the bridge financing during that window: ~₹180 crore at current lending rates — not reimbursable under the scheme.
The semiconductor PLI's end-to-end timeline from MoU to first chip taped-out is not publicly disclosed. Karthik's timeline model for the JV assumes 36–48 months from MoU to first production milestone. The DLI component — the design-linked incentive — has a separate claim window that does not align with the fab's production milestone calendar, creating a dual-track disbursement management problem his team was not structured for at the time of bidding.
Anjali 43 years · CFO, white-goods PLI beneficiary · Dixon/Voltas comparable
Anjali manages the P&L of a white-goods manufacturer that qualified as a PLI beneficiary in Year 1 of the scheme. Her base-year incremental sales target was set in FY21. The scheme pays a percentage of incremental sales over the base year — tiered across five years. The incentive is a trailing cash flow, not an upfront grant.
The working-capital gap in the composite-modelled scenario: her company spends on expanded capacity (new press shop, component localisation, assembly line augmentation) in Year 1. The incremental sales accrue in Years 1–3. The incentive claim is submitted after annual audit. Disbursement arrives after inter-ministerial processing. In three of the five PLI years modelled, the incentive disbursement arrived more than nine months after the close of the relevant financial year.
The scheme's audit stage creates a second bottleneck. In the modelled scenario, 14% of the claimed incremental sales were challenged at the audit stage — the auditors questioned the base-year computation for one product category where the company had re-engineered the SKU. The challenged quantum went into dispute resolution. The undisputed 86% disbursed. The 14% remained in limbo across two financial years. The company's auditors flagged the receivable as a contingent asset under Ind AS 37 — not recognisable as income until the dispute resolved.
Vikram 52 years · Director, DPIIT scheme evaluation · Sectoral disbursement metrics
Vikram runs the scheme evaluation desk for a cluster of PLI sectors. His mandate is to track disbursement against outlay and surface implementation bottlenecks. The headline metric his dashboard carries: total disbursement across all 14 schemes as a percentage of total notified outlay. As of late 2025, that ratio sits at approximately 25% — ~₹50,000 crore disbursed against ₹1.97 lakh crore notified.
The sectoral breakdown the composite scenario surfaces: disbursement ratios vary from near-zero (semiconductor PLI, which is still in greenfield construction phase) to over 60% in mobile handsets (the first and most mature scheme). The median across the 14 sectors is below 30%. The disbursement ratio is not published sector-by-sector in the DPIIT monthly dashboard — the public dashboard shows total-scheme commitments and headline disbursement, not the per-sector split that would let a prospective beneficiary price the timing risk before bidding.
The mid-tenure exit and clawback mechanism in the modelled scenario: three beneficiaries across two sectors failed to meet Year 3 incremental production targets — triggering a clawback clause. The clawback amount was notified. Recovery was initiated through bank guarantee invocation. The actual recovery rate, as a percentage of the clawback amount notified, is not disclosed in any public document. Vikram's internal metric: recovery above 70% in two cases, less than 30% in a third where the beneficiary had wound down operations.