I see that TN has already advocated it, but I would strongly consider 3...Nc6 4.Nc3 e5, continuing in Botvinnik fashion with ...g6 and ...Nge7, and daring him to show why his knight is any good on f3.  I suppose he'll cycle it around to e3; big wup.  I probably wouldn't be in a hurry to play ...f5, though, why would I?  Time enough for that move later, lots of time, given that nothing is happening.

I'm not saying that 4...Nd4 is bad, but I don't see why it "equalizes" any more than the suggested plan or than any number of other things that Black could do. 

What is "equality" in a closed position?  You still have to shuffle your pieces around and find a plan.

Well I agree that e5 even with the tempo loss is decent. It is just not me. I was just mainly wondering if Nd4 is good and if there is any benefit to 4.Nc3.
I am not that scared of a Maroczy in this case as my bishop can go to b4.

I agree that Black should play ...e5, but disagree on the timing: 4...e5! is best, followed by 5...d6 and 6...f5 when White has absolutely no advantage, since ironically his extra tempo Nf3 hinders the f4 break. White can try to play on the light squares with Nd2/ef5/Bg2(f3) and Nd5, but that is rather laborious and unconvincing.

I play this system myself and have actually recommended it many times in this forum as an economical way to face the Sicilian while still keeping the game in 'open sicilian' waters.

The main idea (at least when I play it) is not the closed sicilian but the maroczy bind. As White you reach a normal 'bind' position and also avoid the Nb5-a3 manoeuvre of the main line Taimanov (in case White wants to play c4).

Nowadays I play it via the move order: 1. e4 c5 2. Ne2 so as to have better options against ...d6. The problem is that: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 (or Nc6) 3. c4 e5!? and Black easily equalises and plays a good Q-side Stonewall (Black will easily break with ...f5, while White's f4 is problematic with the Knight already posted on f3).

In your game as White I would have chosen a different path: as I state above ...e5 is probably the best option for Black according to theory (recommended by Gallagher in his Anti-Sics book; don't know what Rogozenko or Palliser had to say in their respective Anti- books) and Black may need to waste another tempo in order to accomplish it. So I would refrain from d3 for the time being and play g3/Bg2 and Rb1/a3/b4 trying to break first in the Q-side before Black is able to play a dangerous ...f5, e.g.: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. Nc3 Nd4 5. g3 d6 6. Bg2 g6 7. O-O Bg7 8. a3 e5 9. b4 Bg4 10. d3, however Black is already considering ...f5. This is the reason I switched to Ne2 keeping f4 as a handy option.

Cannot claim to be the originator of most of these thoughts, but have tried them lately in a few serious OTB games. In any case iirc Rublevsky has played some good games from the White side using an early c4 against the e6-Sicilian.

my 2c 

Recently I (black) had a game that went 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nc6 4.Nc3
I had never seen this before of course (or rather never bothered to look at it), to me it seems like an attempt to play a closed sicilian where white has c4 in by tempting black to play 4..Nf6 to misplace it in the closed setup. The other normal options also didnt appeal to me as they allow 5.d4 reaching a Maroczy setup. So I decided on 4..Nd4 (at least it doesnt misplace the other knight and it certainly stops 5.d4).
The game continued 5.d3 Ne7 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Nb5 Nc6 8.e5 Nxe5 9.Nxd4 and I had a good game (not enough to win, but that was mainly due to my incompetence and my opponent finding clever moves in a position that got worse)
However I was wondering about two things:
-Why is every book recommending 4..Nf6? To me it seems like 4..Nd4 is a much better try at immediately equalising. I also didnt find much in databases.
-I think my opponents 7th and in particular his 6th move were not the best. 6.g3 looks better, though a bit lame. I think that even though it is lame it still offers chances for an advantage.

So chaps, any opinions? It would seem like an interesting line for Taimanov afficionado's facing anti's, if the idea is ok.