I think your units are wrong, if by "g" you mean the gravitational acceleration constant, not the unit of mass.
g as in F = (M*A)/g
without the g which has units of (mass/force) * (distance / time^2) the units in Newtons equation don't balance.
The numeric value of g depends on the unit system and not the acceleration of gravity.
For example, in the pounds mass / pouds force system that used to be common for engineering applications in the U.S. g = 32.2 lbm/lbf * ft./sec^2 which matched the acceleration of gravity. But for other systems such as pounds force / slugs or the pounds mass / poundel system g has a numeric value of 1 and, of course, does not match the acceleration of gravity.
Similarly with the MKS version of the metric system when force is in units of Newtons, g = 1 which does not match the acceleration due to gravity as you note. (strictly speaking Newtons have the units of Kg m / sec^2 which solves the unit conversion problem and eliminates the need for g - but for most of the other systems of units that I have used, you need to keep track of g)
But, back to the original question, specifying torque in units of mass*distance (e.g. Kg cm) makes no sense at all because torque is a force times a distance.
Now, it is possible that instead of using Kg as a unit of mass (which it is) , the specifications are referring to the kilogram-force (= 9.8 Newton) thing (which is not part of the International System of Units (SI) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
), but then it should be written as Kgf not Kg so we could use the specification without having to guess at what they may or may not have intended.