NHB Scheme No. 1

The norm on this row is the "without canning" one: Rs 75,000 per tonne of installed capacity, covering, in the clause's own words, "Production Unit + Compost making Unit". If the project includes canning, the sibling row prices the same unit at Rs 85,000 per tonne instead. They are two prices for one component, never two entitlements.

HOW THE ELIGIBLE PROJECT COST IS WORKED OUT, and it is not what most people assume. NHB's own instruction 16 reads: "In case of cold storage/CA storage, Mushroom, Ripening chamber, Reefer Van, Cold room and Pre-cooling unit, the EPC is worked out on the basis of capacity." Your eligible project cost is your installed capacity in tonnes multiplied by the per-tonne norm above. It is not your invoice total, not your bank's appraised project cost, and not what the farm cost you to build. A farm that costs three crore to build and runs at 200 MT is assessed on 200 MT, exactly like one that cost two crore at the same capacity. Spending more does not buy more subsidy here.

The band is a real eligibility gate at both ends. Below the floor the scheme funds nothing at all under this item, and the clause says "above 50 MT", so 50 MT itself does not clear it. Above 300 MT the extra capacity is simply not priced; it does not disqualify the project, it is just not counted.

ONE READING OF OURS, FLAGGED AS OURS. The clause says "installed capacity" in MT and does not define it, and neither the guideline nor the circular defines it anywhere else. This site reads it as annual installed production capacity in tonnes, which is the reading the numbers themselves support: at Rs 75,000 to Rs 85,000 per tonne, a unit at the 300 MT ceiling is priced between Rs 2.25 crore and Rs 2.55 crore, which is what a farm producing that much mushroom a year costs to build. On any other reading the norms would not resemble the cost of a real project. It is still a reading, not the document's own words, and it is the single assumption everything computed for your own farm rests on. Confirm with NHB how your capacity will be assessed before you rely on a figure.

THE PERCENTAGE ON THIS ROW IS NOT THE ONE PRINTED IN THE GUIDELINE. The January 2025 guideline prints 40% general and 50% enhanced against this item. NHB's Public Circular of 21 August 2026 revised six components, "Integrated Mushroom Units" among them, to 35% and 45%, "with immediate effect". The rate shown here is the circular's, because the circular is the later instrument and says so in terms. If you are holding the guideline and wondering why this site shows a lower percentage than your copy, that circular is the reason, and it is archived here in full.

NO RUPEE CEILING APPLIES TO THIS ITEM. That is a finding, not an omission: all 96 pages were searched for one. The same table states a ceiling in terms wherever one exists, "maximum subsidy upto 100 Lakh/project" on the protected-cultivation and plug-nursery items and "Upto max. Rs. 80.00 lakh/project" on refrigerated transport, and this item carries no such sentence. What limits it is the 300 MT capacity ceiling above.

A spawn laboratory is not priced by this item, which covers the production unit and the compost unit only. It is not excluded either: the guideline's own fallback reads "Components cost (such as Tissue Culture Labs, Mushroom units, etc.) that are not included in the NHB guidelines shall be considered as per the MIDH scheme guidelines", so a spawn lab is priced on MIDH's norms, which this site publishes separately.

A technical standard applies and conformity is mandatory: NHB's own standards table names "Button Mushroom in case of Mushroom Projects", with NHB itself as the authority, and the guideline makes conformity with technical standards a condition of the claim. What that document does NOT say is whether a project growing something other than button mushroom is ineligible, or simply has no standard named for it. Nothing in the guideline or the circular restricts this item to one species. So no species restriction is published here, and an oyster, milky or exotic grower should ask NHB which standard their project will be assessed against before committing spend, rather than assume either answer.

If you have been quoted a Rs 30 lakh ceiling on NHB money for a mushroom project, or a Rs 37.50 lakh one, that figure was real and it was NHB's own. It is no longer the rule. It comes from an undated NHB guideline whose cost-norm annexure is captioned "DURING XII PLAN", the plan period that ran 2012 to 2017, and it was what this site itself published until 14 September 2026. NHB's Operational Guidelines effective 01.01.2025 replaced it with a per-tonne norm and no rupee ceiling on this component, and a Public Circular dated 21 August 2026 then cut the percentage. Both are on this site, in full, with the arithmetic.

One clause, two prices. Item 1(vi) states both in the same sentence: "@ Rs. 75000/MT without canning and @ Rs. 85000/ MT with Canning including Production Unit + Compost making Unit." This row is the with-canning price. A project draws one of the two, never both, and the higher one only where the project actually includes canning.

What the document does not do is define canning, or state what a project must install to qualify for the higher norm. Neither the guideline nor the circular says. Treat the gap between the two norms as something to settle with NHB against your own project drawings before you rely on it.

HOW THE ELIGIBLE PROJECT COST IS WORKED OUT, and it is not what most people assume. NHB's own instruction 16 reads: "In case of cold storage/CA storage, Mushroom, Ripening chamber, Reefer Van, Cold room and Pre-cooling unit, the EPC is worked out on the basis of capacity." Your eligible project cost is your installed capacity in tonnes multiplied by the per-tonne norm above. It is not your invoice total, not your bank's appraised project cost, and not what the farm cost you to build. A farm that costs three crore to build and runs at 200 MT is assessed on 200 MT, exactly like one that cost two crore at the same capacity. Spending more does not buy more subsidy here.

The band is a real eligibility gate at both ends. Below the floor the scheme funds nothing at all under this item, and the clause says "above 50 MT", so 50 MT itself does not clear it. Above 300 MT the extra capacity is simply not priced; it does not disqualify the project, it is just not counted.

ONE READING OF OURS, FLAGGED AS OURS. The clause says "installed capacity" in MT and does not define it, and neither the guideline nor the circular defines it anywhere else. This site reads it as annual installed production capacity in tonnes, which is the reading the numbers themselves support: at Rs 75,000 to Rs 85,000 per tonne, a unit at the 300 MT ceiling is priced between Rs 2.25 crore and Rs 2.55 crore, which is what a farm producing that much mushroom a year costs to build. On any other reading the norms would not resemble the cost of a real project. It is still a reading, not the document's own words, and it is the single assumption everything computed for your own farm rests on. Confirm with NHB how your capacity will be assessed before you rely on a figure.

THE PERCENTAGE ON THIS ROW IS NOT THE ONE PRINTED IN THE GUIDELINE. The January 2025 guideline prints 40% general and 50% enhanced against this item. NHB's Public Circular of 21 August 2026 revised six components, "Integrated Mushroom Units" among them, to 35% and 45%, "with immediate effect". The rate shown here is the circular's, because the circular is the later instrument and says so in terms. If you are holding the guideline and wondering why this site shows a lower percentage than your copy, that circular is the reason, and it is archived here in full.

A technical standard applies and conformity is mandatory: NHB's own standards table names "Button Mushroom in case of Mushroom Projects", with NHB itself as the authority, and the guideline makes conformity with technical standards a condition of the claim. What that document does NOT say is whether a project growing something other than button mushroom is ineligible, or simply has no standard named for it. Nothing in the guideline or the circular restricts this item to one species. So no species restriction is published here, and an oyster, milky or exotic grower should ask NHB which standard their project will be assessed against before committing spend, rather than assume either answer.