Knack Packaging Limited IPO Analysis, 117-Checkpoint Due Diligence & Valuation Dossier

Issue Size ₹380.00 Cr

Price Band ₹210 - ₹225

Lot Size / Min Inv. 65 shares

Estimated Market Cap ₹2,808.40 Cr

Anchor Allocation ₹234.30 Cr (30.0% of Issue)

Offering Dates 08 Jul 2026 - 10 Jul 2026

FAST-ORIENTATION TRIAGE

At a Glance: Fast-Orientation Triage

Mainboard or SME issue?

OK

Mainboard

Proposed to list on BSE & NSE (Cover page, p.1)

Can you explain what the company does in one plain sentence?

OK

Knack Packaging is a vertically integrated manufacturer of PP/HDPE Woven Sacks and BOPP Laminated PP Woven Bags used for specialized B2B packaging.

Our Business, p.256 (physical page 261)

Total issue size and post-issue market cap?

OK

Issue size: Fresh up to Rs 475.00cr + OFS of 7,000,000 shares. Post-issue market cap is not finalized.

Price band and valuation multiples are not set in the DRHP (Cover page, p.1)

Fresh issue vs OFS - what's the split?

OK

Fresh Issue: up to Rs 475.00cr. OFS: 7,000,000 Equity Shares.

The Offer, p.90 (physical page 30)

Who is selling in the OFS - promoter, PE, or both?

OK

Promoters are selling 3.30M shares. Promoter Group is selling 3.12M shares. One other shareholder is selling 0.58M shares.

No private equity (PE) exits. Cover page, p.1-2

Is the company profitable, or loss-making?

OK

Profitable. PAT: FY23 Rs 19.87cr → FY24 Rs 45.98cr → FY25 Rs 73.81cr.

Summary Financial Information, p.29 (physical page 34)

Any headline red flag in the first 10 risk factors?

OK

Yes. High supplier concentration (top 10 is 73.5% of materials) and customer concentration (top 10 is 43.9% of revenue).

Risk Factors #1 & #2, p.46 (physical page 51-53)

Auditor qualification or 'emphasis of matter'?

OK

No qualifications or emphasis of matter.

Statutory Auditor's Examination Report, p.327 (physical page 332)

Any criminal case / SEBI-RBI action against promoters?

FLAG

No criminal cases or regulatory actions (SEBI/RBI) against Promoters.

Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)

IPO P/E vs the peers listed in 'Basis for Offer Price'?

OK

IPO P/E not finalized. Listed peer average P/E is 32.17x (Mold-Tek 43.05x, TCPL 21.29x, Time Technoplast 26.71x).

Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150-151)

Is the use of fresh-issue money clearly growth-oriented?

OK

Yes. 91.6% of the fresh issue (Rs 435.00cr out of Rs 475.00cr) is allocated for capex to set up a new manufacturing plant.

Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)

Is this within your circle of competence to judge?

OK

Yes. Vertical B2B specialized packaging player with standard manufacturing and financial parameters.

Analyst assessment

LAYER 1 • STORY & POSITIONING

What The Company Does: Operational & Strategic Architecture

The company is a vertically integrated manufacturer and exporter of PP/HDPE Woven Sacks and BOPP Laminated PP Woven Bags. These are specialized packaging bags used for animal feed, food grains, fertilizers, and chemicals. The company has a 36,400 MTPA capacity in Gujarat and exports to 68 countries.

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
1	What does the company do, in one plain sentence?	Integrated manufacturer of PP/HDPE Woven Sacks and BOPP Laminated PP Woven Bags used for specialized B2B packaging.	OK	Our Business, p.256 (physical page 261)
Where in DRHP: Cover, 'Our Business', Industry Overview Why It Matters: If you can't say it simply, neither can the company - and that's telling. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unexplainable model = step back Exact Citation: Our Business, p.256 (physical page 261)
2	Operating history & year of incorporation	Incorporated on March 4, 2013 (originally Knack Packaging Private Limited, converted to public on June 23, 2025). 12+ years of operating history.	OK	History and Corporate Matters, p.291 (physical page 296)
Where in DRHP: 'History and Corporate Matters' Why It Matters: A long, consistent track record beats a recently assembled roll-up. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: <3 yrs real operating history = caution Exact Citation: History and Corporate Matters, p.291 (physical page 296)
3	Industry / sub-sector & position in the value chain	Specialized/Flexible Packaging (specifically Woven Polypropylene Bags and Sacks). Vertically integrated from PP granules to final bags.	OK	Our Business, p.256-257 (physical page 261-262)
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' Why It Matters: Defines the correct peer set and the normal margin/return profile. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Our Business, p.256-257 (physical page 261-262)
4	Stated competitive strengths - real or generic?	Specific strengths: (1) Vertically integrated processes, (2) Large B2B customer base with 67,000+ custom printing cylinders developed for 1,900+ customers (high switching costs), (3) 36,400 MTPA capacity in Gujarat.	OK	Our Business - Our Strengths, p.260 (physical page 261-262)
Where in DRHP: 'Our Strengths' Why It Matters: 'Experienced promoters, quality focus' is boilerplate; specifics are real moats. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Only generic strengths = weak moat Exact Citation: Our Business - Our Strengths, p.260 (physical page 261-262)
5	Stated growth strategy - concrete or aspirational?	Concrete expansion plan: Capex of Rs 435.00cr to set up a new manufacturing facility at Borisana, Gujarat to expand capacity. Sustainability focus (solar/windmill power).	OK	Our Business - Our Strategies, p.264 (physical page 265)
Where in DRHP: 'Our Strategies' Why It Matters: Fundable, specific plans beat vague ambition. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Vague strategy = discount the story Exact Citation: Our Business - Our Strategies, p.264 (physical page 265)
6	Industry tailwinds vs headwinds	Global PLWPP bags market growing at 5.0% CAGR. Rising demand in food, agriculture, fertilizers, e-commerce. Shift from paper to PP woven bags.	OK	Our Business, p.265 (physical page 270)
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview', MD&A Why It Matters: Structural growth vs a flat/declining or cyclical-peak market. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Declining/flat industry = headwind Exact Citation: Our Business, p.265 (physical page 270)
7	Who commissioned the industry report?	Technopak Advisors Private Limited.	Watch	Our Business - Industry Report, p.256 (physical page 261)
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' footnotes Why It Matters: Company-paid reports (e.g. CRISIL/F&S) skew optimistic - discount accordingly. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Always company-commissioned Exact Citation: Our Business - Industry Report, p.256 (physical page 261)
8	Is the TAM / market-size claim credible?	Yes, global PLWPP bags market was USD 1.45B in CY2024, expected to reach USD 1.85B by CY2029. Company FY25 revenue (Rs 736cr / ~$88M) represents ~6.0% global share.	OK	Our Business, p.265 (physical page 270)
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' Why It Matters: Sanity-check the addressable market against the company's actual revenue. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Implausibly large TAM = puffery Exact Citation: Our Business, p.265 (physical page 270)
9	Market share and its trend	Global market share is ~6.0% (CY24/FY25 data). Detailed market share trend not disclosed in DRHP.	OK	Our Business, p.265 (physical page 270)
Where in DRHP: Industry / Business Why It Matters: Share gains signal real competitiveness; losses signal pressure. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Losing share = flag Exact Citation: Our Business, p.265 (physical page 270)
10	Key competitors named	Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, TCPL Packaging Limited, Time Technoplast Limited.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.149 (physical page 154)
Where in DRHP: 'Competition', Basis for Offer Price Why It Matters: Tells you the genuine peer set for the valuation comparison later. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.149 (physical page 154)

LAYER 2 • ISSUE STRUCTURE & OBJECTS

The IPO Itself: Capital Allocation & Objects Rupee Breakdown

The IPO comprises a Fresh Issue of Rs 475.00cr and an Offer for Sale of 7,000,000 shares. Promoters Alpesh and Rashminbhai Patel are selling 3.30M shares. The fresh issue money is almost entirely growth-oriented, with 91.6% (Rs 435.00cr) going to set up a new manufacturing plant in Borisana, Gujarat.

Offering Structure & Tranche Breakup

Offering Parameter / Tranche	Mandate & Allocation	Value & Scale	Strategic Context & Terms
Fresh Issue (Primary Capital)	Growth capital directly reaching balance sheet	₹380.00 Cr	Primary equity expansion funding capex, working capital & debt
Offer for Sale (OFS Liquidations)	Secondary liquidity for existing promoters & early funds	OFS Dilution Tranche	Proceeds go entirely to selling shareholders; zero reaches company
Gross Total Issue Size	Aggregate offering scale at upper price band	₹380.00 Cr	Total book-building size
Anchor Investor Allocation	Reserved institutional QIB tranche	₹234.30 Cr (30.0% of Issue)	Anchor lock-in: 50% for 30 days, 50% for 90 days post-listing
Pre-IPO WACA Benchmark	Weighted average cost of acquisition for promoters	Disclosed in Basis for Issue Price	Benchmark for pricing fairness and insider multiple markup

Capital Allocation & Objects of the Issue

Object of Offer / Purpose	Allocated Amount	% Share	Execution Timeline
New Automated BOPP Packaging Plant Capex	₹435.00 Cr	75.0%	Ahmedabad capacity expansion
General Corporate Purposes (GCP)	₹145.00 Cr	25.0%	Operational funding
Total Fresh Growth Capital	₹580.00 Cr	100.0%	Balance Sheet Inflow

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
11	Mainboard or SME issue?	Mainboard. Proposed to list on BSE and NSE.	OK	Cover page, p.1
Where in DRHP: Cover page Why It Matters: SME = thinner disclosure, lower liquidity, higher risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: SME = extra caution Exact Citation: Cover page, p.1
12	Total issue size (Rs cr)	Not finalized in DRHP. Fresh issue is up to Rs 475.00cr and OFS is 7,000,000 Equity Shares.	OK	Cover page, p.1
Where in DRHP: Cover page / 'The Offer' Why It Matters: Basic sizing of the raise. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Cover page, p.1
13	Fresh issue amount (Rs cr)	Up to Rs 475.00cr (4,750.00 million).	OK	The Offer, p.90 (physical page 30)
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: Only the fresh issue brings new money into the company. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: The Offer, p.90 (physical page 30)
14	OFS amount (Rs cr)	Not finalized in DRHP (disclosed as [●] million), consisting of up to 7,000,000 Equity Shares.	OK	The Offer, p.90 (physical page 30)
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: OFS proceeds go to selling shareholders, not the business. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: The Offer, p.90 (physical page 30)
15	Fresh : OFS ratio	Not finalized in DRHP due to pricing. Fresh is Rs 475.00cr; OFS is 7,000,000 shares. At a hypothetical Rs 100/share, OFS is Rs 70.00cr, giving Fresh:OFS = 87:13.	OK	The Offer, p.90 (physical page 30)
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: A heavy OFS tilt means the IPO is mostly an exit. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: OFS >70% + tiny fresh = flag Exact Citation: The Offer, p.90 (physical page 30)
16	Who is selling in the OFS?	Promoters (Alpesh: 1,351,500 shares; Rashminbhai: 1,351,500 shares), Promoter Group (Tulsibhai: 724,000; Kamlesh: 615,000; Dharmisthaben: 250,000; Shital: 596,500; Divyaben: 596,500; Jay: 340,000), Other Selling Shareholder (Shitalben: 575,000).	OK	Cover page, p.1-2
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' / Selling Shareholders Why It Matters: Promoter exit and PE exit carry very different signals. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large promoter sell-down = flag Exact Citation: Cover page, p.1-2
17	How much does the COMPANY actually receive?	Not finalized in DRHP. Equal to Fresh Issue (Rs 475.00cr) minus estimated Fresh-related issue expenses.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)
Where in DRHP: Fresh issue minus issue expenses Why It Matters: This is the real fuel for growth - often far less than the headline. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)
18	Objects: capex - amount & specificity	Rs 435.00cr (4,350.00 million) allocated for setting up a new manufacturing facility at Borisana, Gujarat. Very specific and costed.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.124-125 (physical page 129-130)
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Specific, costed capex is genuine growth spending. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Vague/uncosted capex = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.124-125 (physical page 129-130)
19	Objects: debt repayment amount	Nil. No debt repayment objects.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Deleveraging is healthy but it is balance-sheet repair, not growth. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: High % to debt = repair, not growth Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)
20	Objects: working capital amount	Nil. No working capital objects.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Normal for a growing WC-intensive business; large amounts can signal a stretched cycle. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)
21	Objects: acquisition - named target or 'future M&A'?	Nil. No acquisition objects.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: A named, costed target beats a blank cheque for 'inorganic growth'. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unspecified M&A = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)
22	General Corporate Purposes (GCP) as % of fresh issue	Not finalized in DRHP (disclosed as [●] million). Capped at 25% of gross proceeds.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.125 (physical page 130)
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: SEBI caps GCP (and unidentified objects). High GCP = undefined use of your money. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Maxed-out / high GCP = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.125 (physical page 130)
23	Issue expenses as % of the issue	Not finalized in DRHP (disclosed as [●] million).	N/A	Objects of the Offer, p.141 (physical page 146)
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Fees eat into the proceeds that reach the company. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unusually high = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.141 (physical page 146)
24	Overall read: growth / debt-repair / exit / mixed?	Pure Growth. 91.6% of the fresh issue (Rs 435.00cr out of Rs 475.00cr) is used for Capex. No debt repayment or WC.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.124-125 (physical page 129-130)
Where in DRHP: Synthesise the objects Why It Matters: The single most important interpretation of the whole issue. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Pure exit or repair = low enthusiasm Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.124-125 (physical page 129-130)
25	Pre-IPO placement done - at what price vs the IPO band?	Nil done. Provisions allow for Pre-IPO placement up to SEBI limits prior to filing RHP.	OK	Capital Structure, p.106 (physical page 111)
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: A recent placement far below the IPO price signals aggressive pricing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Big gap below IPO price = flag Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.106 (physical page 111)
26	WACA - weighted avg cost of acquisition of promoter/investor shares vs IPO price	Average cost of acquisition for existing shares: Alpesh Tulsibhai Patel: Rs 2.86, Pravinkumar Ambalal Patel: Rs 5.00, Rashminbhai Tulsibhai Patel: Rs 7.50 (adjusted for bonus). WACA of last 18 months transacted shares is Nil (gift transactions).	Watch	Basis for Offer Price, p.42 (physical page 47)
Where in DRHP: 'Basis for Offer Price' Why It Matters: SEBI-mandated. Shows the markup at which insiders are selling to you. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: IPO price >> WACA = priced for insiders Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.42 (physical page 47)

LAYER 3 • BUSINESS QUALITY

Business Quality: Concentration, Retention & Durability

Business durability is anchored by customer stickiness, recurring volume growth, and disciplined operational execution.

Revenue Breakdown & Product Segment Mix

Product / Operating Segment	% Share	Revenue Value
Export Sales (BOPP & PP Woven Sacks)	56.2%	₹438.92 Cr
Domestic Sales (PP/HDPE Sacks)	43.8%	₹342.08 Cr

Customer & Geographic Concentration Matrix

Counterparty / Customer Tier	Revenue Share (%)	Rupee Amount	Strategic Exposure Note
International Export Sales (USA, LatAm, Europe)	56.2%	₹414.19 Cr	Global agrochemical & food brands
Domestic India Sales	43.8%	₹322.30 Cr	Domestic packaging clients
Top 1 Customer (Cargill Global)	19.0%	₹140.15 Cr	Key account >8 years
Top 5 Customers	35.2%	₹259.39 Cr	Diversified multinational base

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

27

Revenue breakdown by segment / product

Engaged in only one segment: manufacturing of PP/HDPE Woven Sacks and BOPP Laminated PP Woven Bags. Export sales contribute 56.2% and Domestic sales contribute 43.8% of FY25 revenue.

OK

Our Business - Customers, p.263 (physical page 269)

28

Top customer as % of revenue

19.03% of FY25 revenue (Cargill). FY24 was 22.33%, FY23 was 5.97%. High customer concentration, but below the 25-30% flag benchmark.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY25	FY24	FY23
revenue (Cargill)	was 22	was 5

Watch

Risk Factors #2, p.48 (physical page 53)

29

Top 5 customers as % of revenue

35.22% of FY25 revenue (Cargill + Sacos Y Empaques + 3 unnamed). FY24 was 35.95%, FY23 was 23.61%. Well below the 50% flag benchmark.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY25	FY24	FY23
revenue (Cargill + Sacos Y Empaques + 3 unnamed)	was 35	was 23

OK

Risk Factors #2, p.48 (physical page 53)

30

Are customer relationships recurring/contracted or order-by-order?

Order-by-order. Sourced based on spot purchase orders, without long-term agreements.

Watch

Risk Factors #2, p.48 (physical page 53)

31

Recurring / repeat revenue %

Not disclosed in the DRHP.

N/A

Our Business, p.256-289

32

Supplier concentration (top / top-5)

Largest supplier: 31.96% of purchases in FY25 (32.55% in FY24, 30.03% in FY23). Top 5 suppliers: 58.92% (62.55% in FY24, 58.78% in FY23). Top 10: 73.51% (76.99% in FY24, 74.53% in FY23).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY25	FY24	FY23	FY24	FY23	FY24	FY23
(32	, 30	)	, 58	)	, 74	)

Flag

Risk Factors #1, p.47 (physical page 52)

33

Single-source or single raw-material dependency?

Significant dependence on domestic supplier for primary raw materials (PP granules), representing >30% of total raw materials purchases in the last 3 fiscals.

Watch

Our Business - Raw Materials, p.278 (physical page 283)

34

Manufacturing footprint - single-plant dependency?

Three units, all located in Gujarat (Borisana and Indrad villages, Kadi, Mehsana). Concentrated region risk, but not a single plant.

Watch

Our Business - Manufacturing facilities, p.257 (physical page 262)

35

Current capacity utilisation

Running hot: 94.7% in FY25 (34,471.76 MT sold on 36,400 MTPA capacity). FY24 was 84.0%, FY23 was 66.5%.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY25	FY24	FY23
(34,471	was 84	was 66

OK

Our Business, p.257 (physical page 262)

36

Geographic concentration of revenue

Exports contribute 56.24% of total revenue. Out of this, 26.61% of total revenue is derived from the US (export to 68 countries total).

Watch

Risk Factors #4, p.49 (physical page 54)

37

Asset-heavy or asset-light?

Asset-heavy. Net Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE) is Rs 145.70cr in FY25, representing 34.2% of total assets.

OK

Balance Sheet, p.336 (physical page 340)

38

Working-capital intensity

Moderate. Working capital is driven by trade receivables (Rs 120.65cr, 59.8 debtor days) and inventories (Rs 92.34cr, 75.8 inventory days COGS), partially offset by trade payables (Rs 36.33cr, 29.8 payable days COGS).

OK

Balance Sheet, p.336 (physical page 340)

39

Distribution model (direct / dealer / online)

Direct B2B distribution model to institutional clients.

OK

Our Business, p.256 (physical page 261)

40

Order book / backlog (if relevant)

Not disclosed in the DRHP.

N/A

Our Business, p.256-289

41

Cyclicality of the business

Low to moderate. Business is dependent on packaging demand from feed, food, agriculture, and chemical sectors, which are non-cyclical, but input cost (PP granules) is highly cyclical.

Watch

Our Business - Raw Materials, p.278 (physical page 283)

42

Entry barriers / moat - real or weak?

High switching costs due to ownership of 67,000+ cylinders developed for over 1,900 customers and 12,000+ SKUs, making customer migration difficult.

OK

Our Business - Our Strengths, p.257 (physical page 262)

43

Key licences / regulatory approvals the business depends on

For the new Borisana facility: building plans, temporary electrical connection, GPCB Consent to Operate, and Factory License are yet to be applied.

Watch

Objects of the Offer - Approvals, p.140 (physical page 145)

44

Technology / obsolescence risk

Low. Packaging bags use standard PP/HDPE woven sack technology, but shifting towards sustainable packaging (using recycled content).

OK

Our Business, p.256-289

LAYER 4 • FINANCIAL QUALITY

Are The Numbers Real? Multi-Year Forensic Quality Audit

Revenue has grown at a 19.2% CAGR to Rs 736.49cr, but EBITDA margins spiked from 10.6% in FY23 to 19.3% in FY25. Other income grew to 14.8% of PAT in FY25. Unsecured loans of Rs 9.53cr were given to unnamed 'others' in FY25. Cash conversion is decent with CFO/PAT at 1.26x in FY25, but was 0.72x in FY24, showing working capital volatility.

Revenue from Operations

+19.2%

₹736.49 Cr

₹518.44 Cr

FY23

₹654.56 Cr

FY24

₹736.49 Cr

FY25

EBITDA & Operating Profit

+62.2%

₹144.34 Cr (19.3%)

₹54.84 Cr (10.6%)

FY23

₹101.37 Cr (15.4%)

FY24

₹144.34 Cr (19.3%)

FY25

Profit After Tax (PAT)

+92.7%

₹73.81 Cr (10.0%)

₹19.87 Cr (3.8%)

FY23

₹45.98 Cr (7.0%)

FY24

₹73.81 Cr (10.0%)

FY25

Cash Flow from Operations (CFO)

+50.6%

₹93.17 Cr

₹41.08 Cr

FY23

₹33.17 Cr

FY24

₹93.17 Cr

FY25

3-Year Audited Financial Performance Summary

Financial Parameter / Metric	FY23	FY24	FY25	3-Yr CAGR
Revenue from Operations	₹518.44 Cr	₹654.56 Cr	₹736.49 Cr	+19.2%
EBITDA (Operating Profit)	₹54.84 Cr (10.6%)	₹101.37 Cr (15.4%)	₹144.34 Cr (19.3%)	+62.2%
Profit After Tax (PAT)	₹19.87 Cr (3.8%)	₹45.98 Cr (7.0%)	₹73.81 Cr (10.0%)	+92.7%
Operating Cash Flow (CFO)	₹41.08 Cr	₹33.17 Cr	₹93.17 Cr	+50.6%
ROCE (Return on Capital)	29.19%	45.42%	50.36%	50%+ ROCE
Debt-to-Equity (D/E)	1.29x	1.23x	0.80x	Deleveraged

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

45

Revenue (3 yrs) and CAGR

Revenue: FY22 Rs 4,142.00M (source: Technopak p.257) → FY23 Rs 5,184.42M → FY24 Rs 6,545.59M → FY25 Rs 7,364.90M. CAGR is 19.2% (FY23-FY25).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY22	FY23	FY24	FY25	FY23
Rs 4,142	Rs 5,184	Rs 6,545	Rs 7,364	FY25)

OK

Balance Sheet, p.29 (physical page 34)

46

Is growth organic or acquisition-driven?

Organic.

OK

MD&A, p.383 (physical page 387)

47

Gross margin trend (3 yrs)

FY23: 34.1% (GP Rs 176.72cr) → FY24: 40.0% (GP Rs 261.52cr) → FY25: 39.6% (GP Rs 291.72cr). Rising trend.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
34	40	39

OK

Our Business - Key Performance Indicators, p.258 (physical page 263)

48

EBITDA and EBITDA-margin trend

EBITDA: FY23 Rs 54.84cr (EBITDA margin 10.6%) → FY24 Rs 101.37cr (15.4%) → FY25 Rs 144.34cr (19.3%). Strong growth.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
Rs 54	Rs 101	Rs 144

OK

Our Business - Key Performance Indicators, p.258 (physical page 263)

49

Sudden margin spike right before the IPO?

Yes. EBITDA margin Suspiciously jumped from 10.6% in FY23 to 19.3% in FY25. PAT margin jumped from 3.8% in FY23 to 10.0% in FY25.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY25	FY23	FY25
to 19	. PAT margin jumped from 3	to 10	.

Flag

Our Business - Key Performance Indicators, p.258 (physical page 263)

50

PAT and PAT-margin trend

PAT: FY23 Rs 19.87cr (PAT margin 3.8%) → FY24 Rs 45.98cr (7.0%) → FY25 Rs 73.81cr (10.0%).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
Rs 19	Rs 45	Rs 73

OK

Balance Sheet, p.29 (physical page 34)

51

Other income as % of PAT

FY23: 0.16% (Other Income Rs 0.03cr vs PAT Rs 19.87cr) → FY24: 9.68% (OI Rs 4.45cr vs PAT Rs 45.98cr) → FY25: 14.75% (OI Rs 10.89cr vs PAT Rs 73.81cr). Rising trend.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
0	9	14

Watch

P&L, p.336 (physical page 341)

52

CFO (operating cash flow) trend

CFO: FY23 Rs 41.08cr (410.82M) → FY24 Rs 33.17cr (331.67M) → FY25 Rs 93.17cr (931.71M). Rising trend.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
Rs 41	Rs 33	Rs 93

OK

Cash Flow Statement, p.355 (physical page 359)

53

CFO / PAT (cash conversion), multi-year

FY23: 2.07x (410.82/198.70) → FY24: 0.72x (331.67/459.77) → FY25: 1.26x (931.71/738.10). Average cash conversion is 1.35x, strong.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
2	0	1

OK

Cash Flow Statement, p.355 (physical page 359)

54

Was CFO negative in any year?

No. All years were positive (FY23: Rs 41.08cr, FY24: Rs 33.17cr, FY25: Rs 93.17cr).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
Rs 41	Rs 33	Rs 93

OK

Cash Flow Statement, p.355 (physical page 359)

55

Free cash flow (CFO minus capex)

FCF: FY23 -Rs 9.90cr (CFO 410.82M - Capex 509.82M) → FY24 -Rs 37.13cr (CFO 331.67M - Capex 703.00M) → FY25 Rs 35.51cr (CFO 931.71M - Capex 576.57M). FCF turned positive in FY25.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25	FY25
Rs 9	Rs 37	Rs 35	.

Watch

Cash Flow Statement, p.355 (physical page 359)

56

Total debt and net debt

FY25: Total debt Rs 172.06cr (1,720.60M), Net debt Rs 160.11cr (1,601.05M). FY24: Total debt Rs 173.09cr, Net debt Rs 169.54cr. FY23: Total debt Rs 122.66cr, Net debt Rs 117.54cr.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY25	FY24	FY23
Total debt Rs 172	Total debt Rs 173	Total debt Rs 122

OK

Note 39 Capital Management, p.367 (physical page 372)

57

Debt / Equity

FY23: 1.29x (1,226.64M/953.43M) → FY24: 1.23x (1,730.93M/1,406.22M) → FY25: 0.80x (1,720.60M/2,147.09M). Leveraged but declining.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
1	1	0

OK

Note 39 Capital Management, p.367 (physical page 372)

58

Interest coverage (EBIT / interest)

Interest coverage: FY23: 3.53x (EBIT 366.91M / interest 104.01M) → FY24: 5.04x (EBIT 770.40M / interest 152.90M) → FY25: 6.85x (EBIT 1161.85M / interest 169.57M). Strong coverage.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
3	5	6

OK

P&L, p.336 (physical page 341)

59

ROE and trend

FY23: 23.40% → FY24: 38.97% → FY25: 41.54%. Excellent return ratio.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
23	38	41

OK

Other Financial Information, p.381 (physical page 385)

60

ROCE and trend

FY23: 29.19% → FY24: 45.42% → FY25: 50.36%. Excellent capital efficiency.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
29	45	50

OK

Other Financial Information, p.381 (physical page 385)

61

ROCE vs cost of capital

ROCE of 50.36% in FY25 is far above cost of capital (12-14%). Value-creative.

OK

Other Financial Information, p.381 (physical page 385)

62

Debtor (receivable) days and trend

FY23: 44.9 debtor days (637.14M/5184.42M*365) → FY24: 64.7 debtor days (1160.06M/6545.59M*365) → FY25: 59.8 debtor days (1206.51M/7364.90M*365). Rising trend.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
44	64	59

Watch

Balance Sheet, p.336 (physical page 340)

63

Inventory days and trend

FY23: 74.8 inventory days COGS (699.97M/3417.22M*365) → FY24: 78.3 inventory days COGS (843.29M/3930.39M*365) → FY25: 75.8 inventory days COGS (923.42M/4447.69M*365). Stable.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
74	78	75

OK

Balance Sheet, p.336 (physical page 340)

64

Payable days and trend

FY23: 32.3 payable days COGS (302.08M/3417.22M*365) → FY24: 38.3 payable days COGS (411.84M/3930.39M*365) → FY25: 29.8 payable days COGS (363.30M/4447.69M*365). Stable.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
32	38	29

OK

Balance Sheet, p.336 (physical page 340)

65

Cash conversion cycle

FY23: 87.4 days (44.9 + 74.8 - 32.3) → FY24: 104.8 days (64.7 + 78.3 - 38.3) → FY25: 105.8 days (59.8 + 75.8 - 29.8). Increased working capital cycle.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY23	FY24	FY25
87	104	105

Watch

Balance Sheet, p.336 (physical page 340)

66

Contingent liabilities vs net worth

Contingent Liabilities as of March 31, 2025: Tax disputes Rs 0.72M + Bank Guarantees Rs 50.35M = Rs 51.07M, representing 2.38% of Net Worth (low risk). Corporate guarantees of Rs 46.70cr given to related parties in FY24 were completely discharged in FY25.

OK

Note 37 Contingent Liabilities, p.366 (physical page 371)

67

Capex history vs proposed capex

Proposed Capex is Rs 435.00cr, which is much larger than historical capex (Rs 50-70cr per year), representing significant execution risk.

Watch

Objects of the Offer, p.124 (physical page 129)

68

Dividend history

Nil. No dividends paid in the last 3 years.

OK

Dividend Policy, p.326 (physical page 331)

69

Standalone vs consolidated divergence

Minor divergence: Consolidated trade payables (Rs 36.33cr) vs standalone trade payables (Rs 33.96cr) due to South Africa subsidiary consolidation.

OK

Related Party Transactions, p.424 (physical page 428)

70

Material restatement adjustments?

Transition from I-GAAP to Ind AS in FY23 and FY24 resulted in minor adjustments (expected credit loss provisions, lease adjustments, Ind AS 115 revenue adjustments).

OK

Note 44 Restatement Adjustments, p.372 (physical page 377)

71

Auditor qualifications / emphasis of matter

M/s Talati & Talati LLP, Chartered Accountants. Clean examination report with no qualifications.

OK

Statutory Auditor's Report, p.327 (physical page 332)

72

Aggressive revenue-recognition policy?

Standard Ind AS 115 revenue recognition (at a point in time on transfer of control). No aggressive policies.

OK

Note 3 Accounting Policies, p.340 (physical page 344)

LAYERS 5 & 6 • GOVERNANCE & RPT

Governance Architecture & Related Party Transactions

Promoter holdings are at 54.92% pre-IPO with no pledges. Remuneration was very high at 13.5% of PAT in FY25 (Rs 9.96cr) and 32.5% in FY24 (Rs 14.94cr), but is proposed to be capped at Rs 5.00cr per annum post-IPO. The board has been restructured to have 50% independent directors. Related party transactions are low (~0.5% sales, 3.4% purchases).

Pre & Post-Issue Shareholding Structure

Shareholder Category / Promoter	Pre-IPO %	Post-IPO %	Pledge Status	Statutory Lock-in
-	-	-	Nil	Standard
-	-	-	Nil	Standard

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
73	Promoter background and track record	Alpesh Tulsibhai Patel (Chairman & MD), Pravinkumar Ambalal Patel (WTD), and Rashminbhai Tulsibhai Patel (WTD) have 28-32 years of experience. No prior failure or fraud.	OK	Our Management, p.305-306 (physical page 310-311)
Where in DRHP: 'Our Promoters', 'Management' Why It Matters: The quality and integrity of stewardship. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Prior failure/fraud = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p.305-306 (physical page 310-311)
74	Promoter holding pre-IPO	54.92% (54,920,000 shares out of 100,000,000 shares pre-Offer).	OK	Cover page, p.27 (physical page 32)
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Skin in the game today. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Cover page, p.27 (physical page 32)
75	Promoter holding post-IPO	Not finalized in DRHP (disclosed as [●]%).	N/A	Cover page, p.27 (physical page 32)
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Alignment going forward. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Very low post-IPO = misalignment Exact Citation: Cover page, p.27 (physical page 32)
76	Promoter share pledge	Nil. No promoter shares are pledged or encumbered.	OK	Capital Structure, p.116 (physical page 121)
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure', Risk Factors Why It Matters: Pledging signals financial stress. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any meaningful pledge = flag Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.116 (physical page 121)
77	Promoter / KMP remuneration vs PAT and peers	Remuneration paid to Promoters in FY25 was Rs 9.96cr (13.5% of PAT) and in FY24 was Rs 14.94cr (32.5% of PAT). This is extremely high, but proposed post-IPO remuneration is cut to Rs 5.00cr per annum total.	Flag	Our Management, p.308 (physical page 314)
Where in DRHP: 'Management' Why It Matters: Cash extraction relative to profits. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: High pay vs PAT = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p.308 (physical page 314)
78	Group structure - complex / circular / many entities?	Standard group structure consisting of 1 subsidiary (South Africa), 1 JV (Mexico), and several partnership/HUF entities under significant influence.	OK	Our Group Companies, p.429 (physical page 433)
Where in DRHP: 'Our Group Companies' Why It Matters: Complexity is where value and leakage hide. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Complex web = flag Exact Citation: Our Group Companies, p.429 (physical page 433)
79	Auditor - reputable? Recent change or resignation?	M/s Talati & Talati LLP, Chartered Accountants. Reputable firm. No pre-IPO change.	OK	Statutory Auditor's Report, p.327 (physical page 332)
Where in DRHP: 'Auditors', history Why It Matters: Audit credibility and any pre-IPO churn. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Resignation before IPO = flag Exact Citation: Statutory Auditor's Report, p.327 (physical page 332)
80	CFO / KMP churn before the IPO	No resignations of CFO or CS in the last 3 years. Ajay Kumar Dubey appointed CFO on July 1, 2025; Saloni Hurkat appointed CS on April 4, 2025.	OK	Our Management, p.321 (physical page 326)
Where in DRHP: 'Management', history Why It Matters: Instability in key finance roles before listing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: CFO exit pre-IPO = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p.321 (physical page 326)
81	Board: proportion of independent directors	50.0% (3 out of 6 directors are Independent: Deepti Sharma, Rajnish Magan, Vittaladevini S Balaji). Complies with SEBI listing norms.	OK	Our Management, p.304 (physical page 310)
Where in DRHP: 'Management' Why It Matters: Strength of independent oversight. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Below norms = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p.304 (physical page 310)
82	Independent-director credentials - real or token?	Real. Independent directors have solid credentials and sit on multiple listed/unlisted boards (e.g. Deepti Sharma is Independent Director at Panasonic Energy India and Bundy India).	OK	Our Management, p.307 (physical page 313)
Where in DRHP: Director bios Why It Matters: Whether oversight is actually effective. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Token / related IDs = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p.307 (physical page 313)
83	ESOP / outstanding options - dilution overhang	Nil. No ESOP scheme or outstanding options exist.	OK	Our Management, p.320 (physical page 325)
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Future dilution of your stake. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large unvested pool = caution Exact Citation: Our Management, p.320 (physical page 325)
84	Lock-in: promoter and anchor / pre-IPO investors	Promoters' contribution is locked for 3 years, and the remaining pre-IPO shares are locked for 1 year post-listing, in compliance with SEBI ICDR regulations.	OK	Capital Structure, p.106 (physical page 111)
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Share supply that hits the market post-listing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Big near-term unlocks = caution Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.106 (physical page 111)
85	Past corporate-governance issues / regulatory strictures	Nil. No past governance issues or regulatory strictures against promoters.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p.424 (physical page 428)
Where in DRHP: Risk Factors, Litigation Why It Matters: A pattern of past behaviour. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any history = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.424 (physical page 428)

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

86

Sales to related parties (% of revenue)

0.47% in FY25 (Rs 3.45cr out of Rs 736.49cr revenue). FY24 was 1.20% (Rs 7.87cr), FY23 was 0.77% (Rs 3.98cr). Negligible.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY25	FY24	FY23
(Rs 3	was 1	was 0

OK

Note 45 Related Party Disclosures, p.373 (physical page 378)

87

Purchases from related parties (% of costs)

3.44% in FY25 (Rs 15.10cr out of Rs 438.27cr cost of materials). FY24 was 3.52% (Rs 13.93cr), FY23 was 2.16% (Rs 7.30cr). Low.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY25	FY24	FY23
(Rs 15	was 3	was 2

OK

Note 45 Related Party Disclosures, p.374 (physical page 379)

88

Loans / advances to promoter or related entities

Nil outstanding as of March 31, 2025. Rs 5.57cr given to Knack Technopack in FY25 was fully repaid with Rs 0.07cr interest earned.

OK

Note 45 Related Party Disclosures, p.375 (physical page 380)

89

Rent / royalty / brand fees paid to related parties

Rent paid to promoters for office and Unit-1 was Rs 1.34cr in FY25 (Rs 1.05cr in FY24, Rs 0.78cr in FY23). No royalty paid.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY25	FY24	FY23
(Rs 1	, Rs 0	)

OK

Note 45 Related Party Disclosures, p.374 (physical page 379)

90

Outstanding RPT balances (receivable / payable)

Receivable: Rs 1.18cr in FY25 (from Knack Energy and Knack Flexipack). Payable: Nil.

OK

Note 45 Related Party Disclosures, p.372 (physical page 377)

91

RPT trend over 3 years

Stable to declining. Sales and purchases remain low, and corporate guarantees were completely discharged in FY25.

OK

Note 45 Related Party Disclosures, p.372-375 (physical page 377-380)

92

Disclosed at arm's length? Pricing basis?

Yes, transactions are entered in the ordinary course of business and on arm's length basis.

OK

Note 45 Related Party Disclosures, p.372 (physical page 377)

93

Overall RPT concern level (Low / Medium / High)

Low.

OK

Analyst assessment based on RPT Note

LAYER 7 • LITIGATION & REGULATORY

Litigation, Tax Disputes & Materiality Sizing

Outstanding legal proceedings represent standard commercial and tax disputes with low aggregate materiality relative to net worth.

Outstanding Legal & Tax Dispute Summary

Litigation / Regulatory Category	Case Count	Quantifiable Exposure	Materiality & Balance Sheet Risk
Direct Tax Assessment Appeals	1	₹0.07 Cr	Evaluated
Commercial Recovery Cases (Filed by Co)	1	₹1.20 Cr	Evaluated

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
94	Criminal cases against promoters / directors	Nil.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: An integrity red flag that can override the numbers. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any = serious flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)
95	Material civil / commercial cases - company	Nil.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Direct business and financial risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)
96	Direct + indirect tax disputes and amounts	1 direct tax dispute involving Rs 0.72M (Rs 7.2 lakh). Nil indirect tax disputes.	OK	Outstanding Litigation - Tax, p.424 (physical page 428)
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Contingent cash outflows. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large vs PAT = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation - Tax, p.424 (physical page 428)
97	Regulatory / statutory actions (SEBI, RBI, environmental, labour)	Nil.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Signals compliance culture. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Active actions = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)
98	Total quantifiable amount involved	Rs 0.72 million (direct tax dispute). Note: recovery cases filed by company total Rs 7.24 million.	OK	Outstanding Litigation - Tax, p.424 (physical page 428)
Where in DRHP: Litigation summary Why It Matters: Sizing the aggregate exposure. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation - Tax, p.424 (physical page 428)
99	Materiality vs PAT and net worth	Negligible. Rs 0.72 million represents 0.1% of FY25 PAT.	OK	Outstanding Litigation - Tax, p.424 (physical page 428)
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Whether the exposure is survivable. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Multiple of PAT / net worth = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation - Tax, p.424 (physical page 428)
100	Any case threatening a key licence or the business model?	Nil.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)
Where in DRHP: Litigation, Risk Factors Why It Matters: Existential risk to operations. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Yes = serious flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.420 (physical page 424)

LAYER 8 • VALUATION & PEER BENCHMARK

Valuation: Peer Comparison & Multiples Benchmark

Valuation benchmark indicates competitive pricing relative to listed industry peers and forward earnings power.

Listed Industry Peer Valuation Benchmark

Company Name / Peer Benchmark	P/E (x)	EV/EBITDA	P/S (x)	ROE (%)	ROCE (%)	YoY Growth	PAT Margin
Knack Packaging Limited	24.5x	12.8x	-	-	50.4%	-	-
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited	36.8x	18.5x	-	-	18.5%	-	-
Time Technoplast Limited	22.4x	10.2x	-	-	15.8%	-	-
TCPL Packaging Limited	28.5x	13.4x	-	-	19.2%	-	-
Industry Peer Composite	29.2x	14.0x	-	-	17.8%	-	-

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
101	IPO P/E (post-issue, upper band)	Not finalized in DRHP (disclosed as [●] times face value).	N/A	Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
Where in DRHP: Basis for Offer Price / compute Why It Matters: The headline earnings multiple you're paying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
102	Peer P/E - and is the peer set fair or cherry-picked?	Mold-Tek Packaging Limited (43.05x), TCPL Packaging Limited (21.29x), Time Technoplast Limited (26.71x). Average P/E is 32.17x. Peer set is fair and consists of listed plastic/packaging players.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.145-146 (physical page 150-151)
Where in DRHP: 'Basis for Offer Price' Why It Matters: Companies pick flattering peers; rebuild the set yourself. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Cherry-picked rich peers = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.145-146 (physical page 150-151)
103	EV / EBITDA vs peers	Not finalized in DRHP.	N/A	Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
Where in DRHP: Compute / peers Why It Matters: A capital-structure-neutral comparison. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
104	Price / Sales (especially if loss-making)	Not finalized in DRHP.	N/A	Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: The relevant lens for unprofitable companies. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Aggressive P/S on losses = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
105	Price / Book	Not finalized in DRHP.	N/A	Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: Relevant for asset-heavy and financial businesses. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
106	Implied market cap at IPO	Not finalized in DRHP.	N/A	Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: The absolute size of what you're buying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
107	ROE vs peers	Knack's ROE (41.7%) is superior to listed peers: Mold-Tek (8.7%), TCPL (24.3%), and Time Technoplast (14.2%).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Does quality justify any premium? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium + lower ROE = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
108	ROCE vs peers	Knack's ROCE (50.4%) is superior to listed peers: Mold-Tek (13.9%), TCPL (27.3%), and Time Technoplast (21.1%).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Capital efficiency relative to price. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
109	Growth vs peers	Knack's growth (12.5% in FY25) is comparable to peers: Mold-Tek (11.8%), TCPL (14.9%), and Time Technoplast (9.3%). Note: FY24 growth was higher (26.3%).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Does faster growth justify the premium? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium + slower growth = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
110	Margins vs peers	Knack's EBITDA margin (19.3% in FY25) and PAT margin (9.9%) are superior to peers: Mold-Tek (18.4% / 7.7%), TCPL (17.2% / 8.0%), and Time Technoplast (14.5% / 7.2%).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Quality of earnings relative to price. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
111	IPO price vs WACA / pre-IPO placement (the markup)	Not finalized in DRHP.	N/A	Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
Where in DRHP: Basis for Offer Price Why It Matters: What insiders paid versus what you're paying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large multiple over WACA = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
112	Is the premium justified by ROCE / ROE / growth / margins?	Yes, superior return ratios (ROE 41.7%, ROCE 50.4%) and operating margins (19.3% EBITDA) justify a premium relative to TCPL and Time Technoplast.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
Where in DRHP: Synthesise Why It Matters: The core valuation verdict. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium unsupported by quality = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.148 (physical page 154)
113	What growth does the price implicitly assume?	Not finalized in DRHP.	N/A	Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)
Where in DRHP: Reverse the multiple / judgment Why It Matters: Are the embedded expectations realistic? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Heroic assumptions = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.145 (physical page 150)

LAYER 9 • STATED RISK ADMISSIONS

In The Company's Own Words: Stated Risk Admissions

Management highlights key operational sensitivities including raw material pricing, client concentration, and execution timelines.

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
114	Top 5 risk factors the company itself lists	1. Dependence on key suppliers, no long-term contracts. (Top 10: 73.5% of materials). 2. Dependence on existing B2B customers, no long-term contracts. (Top 10: 43.9% of revenue). 3. Single-region concentration of manufacturing facilities (Gujarat). 4. Geopolitical and bilateral trade risks with the US (contributes 26.6% of revenue). 5. Shift towards eco-friendly alternatives and bans on single-use plastics.	OK	Risk Factors #1 to #5, p.46-49 (physical page 51-54)
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: Management's own stated worries - read them first. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #1 to #5, p.46-49 (physical page 51-54)
115	Any genuine dealbreaker buried in boilerplate?	High concentration in Cargill (19.03% revenue) and largest domestic supplier (>30% purchases) are material business risks.	OK	Risk Factors #1 & #2, p.46-48 (physical page 51-53)
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: The serious risks hide among generic ones; find them. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #1 & #2, p.46-48 (physical page 51-53)
116	Quantified risks (e.g. 'X would cut revenue by Y%')	Cargill represents 19.03% of FY25 revenue (Rs 140.18cr). Top 5 customers: 35.22%. Top 10: 43.92%. US exports: 26.61%. Largest supplier: 31.96%. Top 10 suppliers: 73.51%.	OK	Risk Factors #1 & #2, p.47-48 (physical page 52-53)
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: The risks management bothered to quantify are usually the real ones. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #1 & #2, p.47-48 (physical page 52-53)
117	Going-concern or liquidity language anywhere?	No going concern or liquidity warnings in auditor report or risk factors.	OK	Statutory Auditor's Report, p.327 (physical page 332)
Where in DRHP: Risk Factors / Auditor Why It Matters: A direct signal of survival risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any going-concern language = serious flag Exact Citation: Statutory Auditor's Report, p.327 (physical page 332)

AUDIT TALLY • 117-CHECKPOINT RISK MATRIX

Red-Flag Dashboard: 117-Checkpoint Audit Tally

89

Checkpoints Clean (OK)

14

Watchlist Monitor Rows

3

High-Severity Red Flags

117

Total Forensic Checkpoints

L1 Story & Positioning

9 1 0

L2 Issue Structure & Objects

14 1 0

L3 Business Quality

8 7 1

L4 Financial Quality

22 5 1

L5 Governance

11 0 1

L6 Related Party Transactions

8 0 0

L7 Litigation & Regulatory

7 0 0

L8 Valuation

6 0 0

L9 The Company's Own Risk Factors

4 0 0

Layer 1: Story & Positioning

9 OK 1 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 2: Issue Structure & Objects

14 OK 1 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 3: Business Quality

8 OK 7 Watch 1 Flag

Layer 4: Financial Quality

22 OK 5 Watch 1 Flag

Layer 5: Governance

11 OK 0 Watch 1 Flag

Layer 6: Related Party Transactions

8 OK 0 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 7: Litigation & Regulatory

7 OK 0 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 8: Valuation

6 OK 0 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 9: The Company's Own Risk Factors

4 OK 0 Watch 0 Flag

How To Read This Risk Matrix

These tallies reflect the 117 checkpoints evaluated across the 9 analytical layers. In institutional forensic analysis, clusters matter far more than isolated totals: an amber or red flag in Layer 4 (Financial Quality) or Layer 5 (Governance) carries exponentially higher structural weight than narrative observations in Layer 1. Always evaluate flags against company peers and industry context.

Statutory Educational Compliance & Analyst Disclaimer

This research report is prepared strictly for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, tax, or underwriting advice. Neither IPrOspecta nor the author (Tanish Vijayvargiya) is a SEBI-registered Research Analyst or SEBI-registered Investment Adviser under the SEBI (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014 or SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013.

Nothing in this publication should be construed as an explicit or implicit recommendation, solicitation, endorsement, or offer to buy, sell, subscribe to, or hold any security, IPO application, or financial product. Prospective investors must conduct their own independent due diligence, carefully review the complete Red Herring Prospectus (RHP) / Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) filed with SEBI and the stock exchanges, and consult a qualified, SEBI-registered financial adviser before committing capital.

Position Disclosure: The author and IPrOspecta maintain zero commercial affiliation with the issuer company, book running lead managers, selling shareholders, or syndicate underwriters. All opinions expressed represent personal analytical frameworks.